Duane W. Sanders v. Harold W. Clarke, Warden, Nebraska State Prison

Appellant given premature. discovery.

opportunity to conduct pro- further

Reversed and remanded for

ceeding opinion. consistent with this SANDERS, Appellee,

Duane W. CLARKE, Warden,

Harold W. Prison, Appellant.

No. 87-2197. Appeals, United States Court Fritz, Gen., Lynne Lincoln, Atty. R. Asst. Eighth Circuit. Neb., appellant. 9, 1988. Submitted Feb. Omaha, Neb., Robays, Thomas V. Van Sept. Decided appellee. McMILLIAN, ARNOLD,

Before FAGG, Judges. Circuit ARNOLD, Judge. Circuit this habeas we consider the intersection between counsel must follow to withdraw from a frivolous Califor nia, 386 U.S. L.Ed.2d and the standards for effective assistance of counsel set forth in Strick Washington, land v. 80 L.Ed.2d 674

District Court held the no-merit brief filed comply defendant’s counsel did not then, believing necessary prove ineffec counsel, conditionally tive assistance of granted corpus a writ of habeas on that ground. appeals The State both these rul ings. agree District Court’s filed, assessment of the Anders brief because we now hold that a defendant prove prejudiced by his law yer’s nonconforming Anders brief to estab lish ineffective assistance of reverse. change for a and shooting the asked

I. into the cash peered The man had quarter. was Larry Robinson July On toes, she when drawer, standing his on closing. Nifty Bar after up the cleaning change. had ex- She it to make opened a man 1:15 a.m. At about alone. He was and bar glances Robinson changed front glass portal on the knocked man’s Hegarty over the Thomas patron change he needed and said the bar door it was remarked Hegarty had behavior. re- later Robinson bill. ten-dollar get change and then to someone odd for man earlier the had seen he called that O’Kane, and Hegarty, phone. not use the first tending At bar. evening while photo- hundreds of looked at had Robinson man, explain- help the to Robinson refused man the hopes identifying graphs in the the But when closed. ing the bar None had the and/or robber. in bar the emer- was an insisted, claiming man line-up. prior to the made an identification got the and relented gency, Robinson had register. He cash the change line-up from first. After- the viewed Robinson exchange money door to ready to open cracked police he was not he told wards foot in and wedged his man O’Kane when identification. positive make brandishing a revolv- open, men, the door and forced three the same then viewed lie on the Robinson she had er. intruder the man as picked Duane Sanders register and cash he looted Hegarty also identified floor. Then in the bar. seen watch, wallet, and had the bartender’s took three witnesses After all Sanders. leave, stopped then to ring. once, they placed He line-up started were viewed thought, you’re said, “On second to talk allowed together and and a room at Robinson He shot Hegarty anywhere.” going O’Kane and among themselves. Fortu- the head. range in the back of picked they close had told Robinson no There was survived. told nately, policeman A line-up. Robinson men out brain, though he contin- Hegar- injury to direct O’Kane the man group that numbness pain and from neck to the crime. ues to suffer had confessed ty had chosen hearing, 8th, preliminary in his hands. aat On October man Sanders identified Sanders, arrest- Duane appellee, He bar. robbed him and who shot in- After he was September 30th. on ed identify failure to previous explained his questioned about rights formed "psychological barrier” to as due Sanders Bar, Sanders Nifty incident at assailant. admitting had seen he against and shot the bar having robbed to fessed repeat his to When asked the bartender. found was tried Sanders recorder, Sanders tape into a murder, statement second-degree attempted guilty of lawyer. speak to asked refused and the com- a firearm use of robbery, and police called ceased while Questioning direct On felony. aof mission However, be- office. public defender’s Court, ap- Sanders’ the Nebraska hours, no after call was made cause the an Anders seek- lawyer filed pointed sta- come available to lawyer was appeal on the ing withdraw who answered public defender tion. The The Court frivolous. it was ground that to tell police instructed the phone and affirmed attorney’s motion granted Apparently to remain silent. xx-xxi Neb. the conviction. advice; taped state- this took remedies, Sanders Sand- exhausting his state After made. ment was condi- petition a habeas ers filed Un- District Court. granted tionally people three day police called That same order, Sanders Court’s District der the line-up: Barbara a down view the State unless to be released Larry Rob- O’Kane, Hegarty, Thomas another, direct belated him Nifty allows at the was a barmaid inson. O’Kane least, would, file counsel night working the Bar and been complying with about police told she had robbery. Earlier followed. night bar into the a man who came (1) presented questions: are with two panel but asks modify this of the Court to decision.2 the no-merit brief filed Sanders’ Was adequate California, Califor- nia, (2) not, if it was must Sanders Court described the extent of the duty prejudiced by demonstrate that he was court-appointed prosecute counsel to a first appeal attorney’s from a criminal deficient brief? conviction after he conscientiously

has determined that in- digent’s appeal has no merit. 386 U.S. at II. 739, 87 S.Ct. at 1397-1398. The Court con- cluded that if counsel found the case to be The State first contests the District wholly frivolous, he should advise the court Court’s determination that Anders was not permission and ask Id. at to withdraw. complied Admitting with.1 that counsel’s 744, However, 87 at S.Ct. 1400. the Court argue does brief not for of Sand reversal required also along file a brief conviction, ers’ the State contends that ar request “referring with his to anything in guments required for are reversal not un might arguably record that support Anders, citing Gagnon, Nickols v. der 454 appeal.” Id. Throughout process, this denied, (7th Cir.1971), cert. F.2d lawyer was directed to “act in the of role U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 336 an active client, advocate behalf of his Nickols declared that support. for opposed to that of amicus curiae.” Id. the no-merit brief does not have to argue Black, In Robinson v. this Court clarified case, defendant’s need duties, directing “refer counsel’s him “to brief and anything in might the record that [] argue case to the best of [defendant’s] [his] arguably support Id. at 471- appeal.” ability, showing the most favorable side 8, quoting 72 n. Id. at 1086. arguments.” defendant’s added). (emphasis at 1400 The State agree with the District Court acknowledges this interpretation brief filed Sanders’s counsel does Anders clashes Eighth with an Circuit with Anders. The eight-page comply Black, Robinson v. reads like summary memorandum Cir.1987) petition filed, 56 U.S.L. proceedings, emphasis given to rea- for (U.S. Aug. 3, 1987) (No. 87-211), Week holding sons for argu- them correct.3 No 1. ness withdraw] in —we cited Anders in olous Sanders’s State (1985). Thus, Supreme Court Rule tion provides affirmed or that the decision of the trial action embody sarily preme braska brief was frivolous. ments for appeal counsel filed a brief which did Of fact course, upon think the appeals. found the District on its was frivolous. While we Court did not Sanders, the Anders that in "if, inherent inadequate, and a reversal; second, the no-merit brief procedure reversed, upon consideration own motion.” The Rule we cannot do that. post-conviction appeal, we believe a Court listed two This conclusion is buttressed referring By affirming review of the Court failed to 220 Neb. conjunction in the state court's 20-A(8) the court specifically we do not was frivolous. The Rule was not satisfied: to its earlier decision finding —now record, Sanders' under with the Rule. find ways agree may Nebraska handling think find that the a motion [to Court neces- of frivolous- N.W.2d 641 Rule 3 make appears should be the Court it take such Nebraska in which counsel's appears convic- ruling. argu- first, B(4) friv- Ne- Su- 3. The vidual weight to believe the State’s witnesses and not the ly alibi evidence parking lot of the bar 45 minutes after the himself decide and will not be disturbed unless clear- alibi, rights. ant admitted the commission of the crime to shot him. In had Officer Farmer after although change obtain ^[173] guilty. There were several witnesses who tes- tified to the Defendant’s conduct in at that port for a directed verdict clearly 3. The wrong. closed, following paragraph N.W.2d change sufficient of their time. identified jury's finding there credibility Defendant peering knocked on the door forced his State v. given. Defendant did not addition, 520. The presented by He was also aof was evidence testimony evidence, believed, over into the cash Leary, being fully quarter of the witnesses and the In made the way that the Defendant was Defendant as the indi- (B/E 356). presence jury obviously addition, is course, in and robbed and if is for the 185 Neb. representative: the defense. and his unusual observed in the presented advised of his usual motion after the bar in the bar to testify, the Defend- the victim There is register chose anof sup- is this unless brief. forming cited reversal, cases are meats presumed, is where situation In- appeal. Sanders’s support might Sand- applies, and standard the Strickland is it seamless so deed, narrative is, must show ers error —that points what discern difficult probabili- a reasonable show must like reads short, memorandum are. appeal would the outcome ty that in Anders. forbidden brief amicus if his different been argu- to offer fails case, because Naturally, Sanders satisfied defendant’s support ments where is an instance this argues Robinson.4 inadequate of his support presumed. Black, on Robinson tention, he relies III. prejudice that because arguing supra, District the that argues in that the Next not mentioned requirement to Sanders required have This also should Court case, not exist. does his counsel’s Dis- he was prove Robinson given interpretation we now Because brief. Anders deficient Court. trict ineffec- for standard that hold explicitly is from Robinson gleaned to be rule The in forth set of counsel assistance tive explicitly True, case does unclear. situation, re-we this applies Strickland fact, it prejudice. showing of require verse. relationship be- all the at not discuss does has the it Strickland, appellant nor does criminal and Anders tween as of assist- his first ineffective attorney in for right to an the standard mention 600, However, 94 be- U.S. 417 Moffitt, counsel. v. appellate Ross See of right. ance Douglas (1974); to the 341 back L.Ed.2d case 2437, sending 41 S.Ct. fore evaluat- 353, carefully 83 S.Ct. Court, panel California, v. defendant, necessarily and right of (1963). arguments L.Ed.2d ed as frivolous.” effective “far from to the right they were comprehends concluded Indeed, the Lucey, 469 v. at 1087. Robinson, supra, Evitts counsel. of sistance as case L.Ed.2d Robinson’s presented 105 S.Ct. Court U.S. init explored de and Supreme Court briefed have been Though the in- possibly out pointed standards Court appropriate lay out detail. clined evi- in as came testimony which assistance ineffective of claims admissible judging for tipped the balance Evitts, “may at have id. in counsel dence appellate of ob- verdict” guilty applied jury’s has 833-834, Court this toward at delib- trials, much v. two Bell took “it standard. served two-part Strickland convict second, Cir.1986); for Bea in (8th eration F.2d Lockhart, 795 8. In n. at Id. Cir. Lockhart, Robinson.” v. vers prejudice potential into inquiry searching ineffec of a claim sustain 1985). made. fact inwas appellate of assistance tive per show as consist- read be can Thus, Robinson prevail prejudice showing was unreasonable of formance requiring ent with for norms, of ing professional assistance finding ineffective before a reason is Supporting there performance deficient context. Anders in the counsel way is an outcome this read probability able it should notion Lockhart, supra, different. been Beavers earlier An- inadequate involving an a claim where contends petition, his habeas assist- ineffective treated ders assistance effective denied potential and the appellate of ance non-con- lawyer filed a when of counsel reasons reversal, appointed counsel’s — ing Wisconsin, Appeals McCoyv. Court of do not be frivolous. appeal to believing the —, 100 L.Ed.2d directly involves holding this upheld a rule believe Court (1988), the appeal. contain, present ad raised briefs issue Anders requiring justify arguably record anything dition truly is eval- lazy lawyer. suffered the defendant And while it is Beavers, supra, at uated, not assumed. true that Strickland did not mention An- 663. Beavers also does not discuss why ders, it did list other situations as instances claim was treated in this man- per se ineffective assistance of counsel. ner. Strickland, supra, 104 S.Ct. at list, exhaustive, though 2067. This evi- prior We think that law this Circuit (like interest) dences situations a conflict preju- points requiring toward prove reliability fact-finding where the pro- dice to ineffective assistance of coun- Anders brief is nonconforming undermined, severely sel where a cess is and the de- explicitly, rule filed. We now state this gree impossible to deter- explain why way it is the soundest of mine. As the Court observed in United Strickland. reconciling Cronic, States “the to the effective recognized assistance of counsel is not for have also examined the Other circuits sake, its own but because of the effect it relationship between Anders and Strick ability has on the land. Some have concluded accused to receive modified Anders without offering expla a fair trial. Absent some effect of [the] James, (2d nation. Nell v. challenged reliability conduct on the McCotter, Cir.1987); Lockhart v. 782 F.2d process, guaran- trial the Sixth Amendment denied, (5th Cir.1986), generally implicated.” tee is not (1987). 1030, 107 S.Ct. 93 L.Ed.2d 827 648, 658, 2039, 2046, 80 L.Ed.2d Others have held an Anders violation to mu- applies, The same remark per constitute se ineffective assistance of mutandis, tatis appellate process. to the Hills, counsel. Freels v. 843 F.2d 958 Indeed, forget we must also not that under Cir.1988); Berry, Cannon v. 727 F.2d 1020 Anders it is the Court —not counsel —which Freels, (11th Cir.1984). the Sixth Circuit wholly decides whether the case is friv- specific concluded that the more dictates of olous after a full examination of all the Anders should control over the general supra 386 U.S. at proceedings. Freels, supra, Strickland. ones of 963. 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400.5 Cannon, pre-Strickland a strong practical argu- We note as well a expressed Eleventh Circuit concern that if requiring ment in showing favor prejudice required, were then prejudice. It could well be that the inade- with the compliance procedure Anders brief reaches the quate Cannon, supra, would be eroded. at 1024. clusion, appeal is frivolous. How- Though the reservations of the Sixth and ever, prejudice presumed, if then the give pause, Eleventh Circuits us on balance court, case must be remanded to the state position evolving we find the that is in our written, appellate new a fresh direct persuasive. own Circuit more think court, appeal made state rigorous by observation counsel of the then, significant expenditure after a by need not be eroded resources, might time and again the case imposing prejudice requirement on de- following which, be dismissed as arguing fendants ineffective assistance frivolous — doubt, petitioner would return to the lawyers counsel. profes- Most take their present questions habeas court which responsibilities seriously, sional and when just can as well they be looked at now. It fail to fulfill their duties in the An- logical ders situation, seems more and efficient they think for the do so more inquiry appeal’s into the misunderstanding uncertainty from merit to come here, stage than sloth or adequacy willfulness. Ethical sanctions at the where the public reprimand or Anders brief is settled. would still be available this manner West, point (10th Cir.1986). 5. We out that this is not a case where no Sanders's taken, where, appeal brief, at all was or attorney due to some thereby wrote and filed some appeal technical error was lost. securing review of his client's conviction See, Evitts; Lockhart, e.g., Williams v. Court. (8th Cir.1988); 1137 n. 3 cf. Griffin Sanders, and identify may initial reluctance steps wasteful potentially the later evaluating credibility. shown, capable of was course, if Of avoided. state remanded will be case then against could claim evidence Sanders take will direct court, new and the However, to convict. him was insufficient Black, supra. See, e.g., place. proof on one heavy burden of is a there After verdict. to overturn

trying ourselves, we con- reviewing evidence IV. here. The was not met clude burden re Having established a host of evi- also could it is met. if look to see we now quirement, him at against dentiary rulings which went be discerned can arguable issues Six correct, appear to have been These trial. merit. None has Anders brief. affect the outcome did not case lack of was Sanders proceedings. Nor, reviewing upon advocacy in the brief. might the harsh- Finally, contest Sanders un other ourselves, we find do record He was he received. ness sentence have merit. presented issues attempted years on the given 16 to 50 argue his confes- might First, Sanders on the rob- charge, years to 50 murder However, it illegally obtained. sion years on the 6 to 10 bery charge, and speak he requested offense, run con- all sentences firearm officer, admitted then arresting all with- were secutively. sentences These the bar. and robbed had shot Robinson he however, limits, it is statutory contact, and initiated the The defendant to set judge’s discretion within trial doing so. into deceived coerced or the de- consecutively. Given them to run confes- before warned properly He was par- record and past criminal fendant’s When again after. warned sion and was offense, not we do latest ticulars with- taped statement give he refused to his discretion judge think abused the trial attempted to se- police lawyer, out a It is he did. punishment imposing the attorney an for him. When counsel cure Amendment Eighth that the equally clear station, ques- come to the able to not was not violated. was Thus, Sanders’s ceased. tioning by police appeal would that Sanders’s We conclude voluntary. confession if it even to be frivolous have been found were might argue there Next, Sanders in conformi- lawyer by his argued had been fol- procedures identification defects because ty with line-up. He during his by police lowed lawyer’s failure by his not unrelia- might claim that brief, in the referred argue the issues line- only ble, man since assistance ineffective did not receive he white shoes. and hair with up with braided of the judgment Accordingly, the counsel. differences slight these do not believe reversed, the writ of and District Court infected fatally appearances in the men’s denied. corpus habeas dowe line-up. While of the reliability telling practice of police encourage the McMILLIAN, Judge, Circuit man who confessed witnesses that dissenting. do not believe line-up, we crime was in Although agree I dissent. respectfully I identification doing so tainted their no-merit majority that witnesses three here. made comport counsel did by Sanders’ filed without photographs hundreds viewed California, Anders v. them Two of identification. making I can not L.Ed.2d S.Ct. sus- being told the without picked Sanders preju show must also agree that Sanders possible it is While present. pect was Washington, under dice only eyewitness, Robinson, the victim L.Ed.2d police’s U.S. influenced may have been Hence, I obtain relief. (1984), in order Robinson’s revelation, jury heard about (2) by referring any- issuance a brief counsel the district court’s would affirm thing might arguably support corpus. of a writ of habeas appeal; that Sanders’ counsel The record shows (3) furnishing copy of the because he: filed a motion to withdraw giving him brief and time to raise thoroughly conscientiously ex- ha[d] chooses; points he in said amined the record ha[d] (4) finding by the court that the case legal might argu- issues which briefed all wholly frivolous. ably support found a direct ha[d] 386 U.S. at 87 S.Ct. at 1400. merits, arguable them on their none of holds, majority agree, and I that the that a direct concluded ha[d] “brief” filed Sanders’ counsel did not wholly considered friv- [could] satisfy Item 2. It reads like an amicus olous. state, making filed on behalf of the curiae Accompanying this motion was a memoran- reversal, arguments rather summary dum brief which set out preempting any arguments such with the (1) evidence and mentioned several issues: conclusory possible argu assertion that all suppression Sand- of statements ments for reversal would be frivolous. ers, (2) eyewitnesses’ suppression of the satisfying This does not come close to An- Sanders, (3) the identification of introduc- ders, particularly applied as we have composite drawing alleged tion of a Black, case Robinson v. assailant, (4) sufficiency of the evi- (8th Cir.1987),petition filed, dence, (5) evidence, rulings objections to on (U.S. 3, 1987) Aug. (No. 56 U.S.L.W. 3134 (6) sentence. None of the Sanders’ 87-211) (counsel “argue his case to argued favorably for identified issues was ability, showing of counsel’s best Sanders; conclusion was that most favorable side of the defendant’s ar there was no error. guments”). Court, relying The Nebraska equally It is clear to me that the Nebras- motion,

upon the held: opinion satisfy ka Court’s did not 44019; Motion of No. State v. Sanders. make, Item 4. The Nebraska court did not appointed for leave made, to with- finding nor has it ever sustained; appearance judgment draw wholly case is frivolous. The Nebraska 20-A(8). “affirmed;” affirmed. Rule Supreme simply See Court stated any there is and was no discussion or decla- 20-A(8), (1981). 209 Neb. xx-xxi Rule now findings. post ration of its Even on the 3B(4), provides: Rule Sanders, appeal, 220 conviction State v. upon If of a consideration motion [to 308, 369 N.W.2d 641 the court Neb. record, a the it and review of withdraw] did not declare that it had earlier found the appears of the trial that the decision appeal wholly direct The frivolous. court reversed, the court should be affirmed or merely summary referred to its affirmance may court take such action on its own way In rule and cited Anders. can this motion. finding be said to amount to a my opinion, the brief filed Sanders’ wholly appeal required by frivolous as counsel, opinion the the Nebraska Su- footnote, majority very In a the Anders. 3B(4) preme Court, and Nebraska’s Rule all conveniently attempts explain away to the run afoul of the Court Anders. compli- Court’s lack of Nebraska requirements in set out four to be satisfied by cavalierly stating: ance with Anders indigent’s order for a state to resolve an By affirming upon conviction Sanders’s appeal direct without the aid of counsel: the no-merit brief Nebraska Su- (1)a finding by 20-A(8) case is preme counsel that the Rule Rule 3- Court —now wholly frivolous, B(4) after a conscientious think the Nebraska —we examination, necessarily court of that found the advise to the Court “if, finding, withdrawal; provides upon request and a for frivolous. The Rule in which coun counsel to cases sistance of withdraw] a motion [to consideration comport with that does not record, appears files a brief sel review must, begins, as it majority Anders. the trial court decision that ap may every indigent criminal reversed, noting that or affirmed attorney in his right motion.” an to pellant on its own has action such take Anders v. Ross See embody right. to as of appears first Rule Mof appeals. 2437, handling 600, frivolous 41 L.Ed.2d 94 S.Ct. fitt, for procedure fact California, 372 (1974); Douglas v. is buttressed conclusion This 341 in decision (1963). earlier referring to its L.Ed.2d 811 in that deny post-conviction completely an Sanders’s if state were But conjunction with in cited Anders appellant Court indigent criminal Sanders, Neb. Rule. to demon counsel, required he be would Thus, we N.W.2d Strickland not. I think prejudice? strate frivolousness finding of if presumed believe prejudice is provides that itself ruling. court’s state inherent or con the actual is denied the defendant U.S. at of counsel. impermissible an structive assistance opinion, is This, my however, Today, It record. a silent presumption crimi indigent majority that holds that plausible certainly equally seems if considered must demonstrate appellant never nal Supreme Court failing provide state, frivolous. than appeal was rather whether dutifully rewrite majority provides attempt by the instead abortive A requirements state. amicus brief prepares and detailed an specific not be him- could Procrustes result cause even more anomalous Anders Here, Su- that the Nebraska I would hold reached. blush. self to twice, once, counsel afforded where presumed Court preme Anders; favor ruling files indigent with its to conform chance frivolous, it had is, appeal was the state. if the for so its and set out reasons say so only to majority’s Moreover, I believe concluding. to cases apply decision war- majority’s disagree with I also non-conforming has filed 3B(4) “ap- Rule conclusion rantless conflicts impermissibly Anders embody the pears to circuit. of this precedent theOn appeals.” handling frivolous peti Cir.1987), Black, F.2d 1084 clearly con- 3B(4) face on its trary, Rule (U.S. filed, U.S.L.W. tion for While holding of flicts 87-211), that an held 1987) (No. Aug. finding specific requires a entitled appellant was criminal 3B(4) frivolous, states Rule that a brief attorney filed his relief because providing standard lenient much more Robin inadequate under be trial court of the Cir.1981), decision if the (8th Wyrick, v. son may proceed court or reversed affirmed appellant criminal held that so. attorney to do his to relief because entitled In neither all. appellate filed ma my differences with from Aside demon appellant to require the here, case did we I be application of jority’s accord position is in prejudice.1 strate commit error more fundamental lieve the have circuits other both apply with majority is the decision by ted consideration. matter careful given this as of ineffective the standard pointing out the analysis. I refrain court’s can be majority's “Robinson assertion 1. The identification raised issues requiring a substantial with as consistent read prejudice” only used connection merely procedures the Robinson because too, I, will arguments that fear crime for a few to this eyewitness in a footnote noted dissenting cared because had counsel been made as could disingenuous. be misunderstood pos- these merits relative record. appears on the role arguments clearly had no sible Hills, Cir. See Freels 1988); Berry, 727 F.2d 1020 Cannon v. O’LEARY, Appellant, Harold Edwin (11th Cir.1984). important I it is to remember that believe America, Appellee. UNITED STATES dealing the sixth

we are amendment No. 88-1133. counsel, right right protects safeguards rights all of the bundle of other Appeals, United States Court of privileges that are so fundamental to Eighth Circuit. justice; the administration of ef- without Aug. Submitted 1988. pre- fective assistance of counsel the whole trial, trial, process appellate becomes Sept. Decided system blurred. our adversarial Under justice, argued it cannot be ab-

sence of effective assistance of counsel is prejudicial per could it se. How here,

otherwise when surren-

dered his role as an advocate and donned prosecutor?

the cloak of an additional As Judge Lay

Chief wrote Robinson v.

Black, 812 F.2d at 1086-87: right expect had a counsel to argue his case to the best of ability, showing the most favor- arguments. side of the

able defendant’s changed process

Counsel the adversarial inquisitorial by joining

into an forces working against

with the state and Upon withdrawal,

client. Counsel’s Rob- proceed pro against

inson was left to se state, ap- which had the benefit

pointed counsel’s brief. protection

Because Anders mandates the

of such a basic fundamental as the

effective assistance of counsel on I affirm the district court’s decision to

grant corpus. the writ of habeas

record shows that Sanders has been aban- attorney,

doned egregiously who has

put his justice thumb on the scales of as a prosecutor against

second his client. No

additional need be shown.

Case Details

Case Name: Duane W. Sanders v. Harold W. Clarke, Warden, Nebraska State Prison

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Sep 12, 1988

Citation: 856 F.2d 1134

Docket Number: 87-2197

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.