United States v. Thomas Blackledge
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8413
| 4th Cir. | 2014Background
- Blackledge is civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person under the Adam Walsh Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 4247-4248).
- A court-appointed expert (Dr. Campbell) found Blackledge sexually dangerous; Blackledge sought a second examiner (Dr. Plaud) and discovery extension.
- Motions to appoint a second expert and to reopen/extend discovery were denied; Attorney Allen sought withdrawal citing an internal conflict and later a bar complaint.
- Two co-counsel joined later; trial proceeded with current counsel; Blackledge did not testify; three experts diagnosed pedophilia and SDP.
- District court found SDP by clear and convincing evidence; appellate court vacated and remanded for further inquiry into Attorney Allen’s conflicts; issue of Plaud appointment remained unresolved.
- Dissent argues district court did not abuse its discretion and would affirm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying withdrawal motions | Blackledge: abuse; conflict harmed defense | Blackledge: not prejudiced; counsel adequately represented | Yes, abused; remand for proper inquiry |
| Whether denial of withdrawal harmed right to effective counsel under Adam Walsh Act | Blackledge asserts due process right to effective counsel | No Sixth-Amendment right required; conflict did not deprive defense | Yes, district court erred; conflict undermined defense |
| Whether discovery extension and appointment of Plaud should be reopened | Blackledge requires another examiner for fair defense | Not warranted; no need shown for Plaud | Not reached; remanded for conflict inquiry before ruling on Plaud |
| Whether the order should be vacated and remanded based on conflict analysis | Blackledge entitled to reconsideration after conflict inquiry | No need to vacate if no abuse shown | Vacated and remanded for appropriate inquiry |
| Whether any errors were harmless | Remand, not harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gallop, 838 F.2d 105 (4th Cir.1988) (abuse-of-discretion factors for withdrawal motions)
- United States v. Horton, 693 F.3d 463 (4th Cir.2012) (harmless error review in withdrawal rulings)
- Maples v. Thomas, Maples v. Thomas, — U.S.—, 132 S. Ct. 912 (U.S.2012) (conflict of interest impacting deadlines; procedural default)
- United States v. Smith, 640 F.3d 580 (4th Cir.2011) (standard for evaluating attorney-conflict adequacy of inquiry)
- Jennette v. United States, 387 Fed.Appx. 303 (4th Cir.2010) (timeliness of withdrawal and impact on preparation)
- Gray v. Pearson, 526 Fed.Appx. 331 (4th Cir.2013) (conflict of interest in habeas context; persistence of conflict impact)
- United States v. Chavis, 476 F.2d 1137 (D.C.Cir.1973) (distinguishing court-appointed examiner role)
- Mickens v. Taylor, 240 F.3d 191 (9th Cir.2001) (conflict of interest and court duty to inquire)