Prostitutes Easley, Girls in Easley, United States

When the prosecutor noted that Hanson had represented Plankington in the arson matter and that Plankington was a probable witness at the penalty retrial, Hanson stated he felt this would not be a problem in that, if necessary, the prosecution had other witnesses to testify regarding the confession , and that the judge who presided at the January hearing had agreed with that assessment. After asking Hanson to state his qualifications, the court appointed Hanson defendant's counsel.

Nuernberger identified two key events in defendant's adult life -- specifically the murders of his wife and daughter -- that he felt contributed to defendant's mental problems.

Nuernberger noted that defendant had been hospitalized for psychiatric problems in or The doctor concluded that at the time of the Junghanses' murders, defendant had a mental disorder that affected his free will, and was therefore vulnerable to becoming involved in a murder plot. George Kellogg, also a psychiatrist, [46 Cal. Like Nuernberger, Kellogg testified that defendant's Prostitutes Easley could have caused him to be susceptible to the influence of others and that the death of his daughter had been a major contributor to stress in his life.

As noted above, the principal Prostitutes Easley phase evidence introduced in aggravation consisted of allegations that defendant Prostitutes Easley committed the violent crime of burning down the Chicken Ranch Prostitutes Easley for Martin.

Plankington, owner of the Chicken Ranch, testified for the prosecution Prostitutes Easley defendant's involvement in the arson.

Three face sex-trafficking charges

The record discloses the following: At the time Hanson Prostitutes Easley defendant Prostitutes Easley the second penalty trial, he simultaneously represented Plankington in a federal civil suit against Martin and others. In that suit, Hanson's complaint alleged on behalf of Plankington that defendant committed the Chicken Ranch arson. At his first trial, defendant was represented by the Stanislaus County Public Defender. Ante, pp. Plankington testified that about the date of the arson, he Prostitutes Easley defendant in a bar with Bill Martin, the rival [46 Cal.

Defendant did not testify at the penalty phase of his first trial. In Decemberat the trial setting conference on defendant's second penalty trial, the public defender who had represented defendant in the first trial asserted he was unable to continue representation because he had a conflict. In return, Plankington wanted defendant to testify in a then-pending federal criminal trial that he defendant committed the Chicken Ranch arson.

Thereafter, the public defender was subpoenaed and testified at the federal criminal Prostitutes Easley, concerning the Prostitutes Easley mentioned conversation with Plankington. Defendant and Plankington testified at the same trial.

People v. Easley - 46 Cal.3d S - Thu, 09/01/ | California Supreme Court Resources

The public defender explained that he Prostitutes Easley his testimony at the intervening federal criminal trial had differed from Plankington's testimony at that trial. As a result, the public defender felt it was possible that he would be required to testify at defendant's second penalty trial, concerning Plankington's Prostitutes Easley. The public defender also stated there had been a total breakdown of the attorney-client relationship after the first trial.

There are two flaws in the People's argument.

Neither Hanson nor defendant, both of whom were present at the conference, disputed the facts recited by the public defender. Defendant stated he did not want the public defender to represent him, and that he wished Hanson to be his attorney in the penalty retrial. Hanson noted that he was familiar with the case, and would accept an appointment. On the basis of these representations, the court relieved the Stanislaus County Public Defender, but declined at that time to appoint Hanson, and instead appointed the Monterey County Public Defender.

The appointment of counsel issue was again discussed in early Prostitutes EasleyProstitutes Easley a different judge. The first of these hearings was off the record, fn. Hanson stated that although he did not solicit appointment as counsel for defendant, he would accept such an [46 Cal. The Monterey County Public Defender noted that Hanson was familiar with the case Prostitutes Easley with defendant, because he had represented defendant in his appeal from the first judgment. In addition, the public defender Prostitutes Easley it would be a significant burden on his staff, and potentially a financial burden on the county, if his office were required to take defendant's Prostitutes Easley.

The prosecutor opposed Hanson's appointment, citing a Prostitutes Easley conflict of interest. He disclosed that Hanson had on Plankington's behalf -- see post, fn. A conflict could arise, the prosecutor suggested, if defendant chose to take the stand during the penalty phase in order to Prostitutes Easley involvement in the Prostitutes Easley.

The prosecutor stated that at that point Hanson might be called as a witness to impeach defendant's testimony. Hanson did not contest these factual statements.

Instead, he asserted the arson evidence was inadmissible because Prostitutes Easley had not been convicted of that crime. Later that day a second Prostitutes Easley was held, and defendant was present. The public defender repeated his assertion that Hanson was most familiar with the case, and submitted defendant's declaration, asking that Hanson be appointed Prostitutes Easley counsel. The court asked defendant if he wanted Hanson to be his counsel, and defendant responded affirmatively.

After asking Hanson to state his qualifications, the court appointed Hanson defendant's counsel. Hanson then noted that the district attorney had suggested he Hanson might be called as a witness, Prostitutes Easley he asserted other witnesses could provide the same information.

In addition, he reiterated his belief that defendant's testimony in the intervening federal criminal trial was protected from disclosure because defendant had been granted immunity for his testimony. The district attorney stated he did not Prostitutes Easley intend to call Hanson as a witness. But, he noted, he had requested the transcripts from the federal criminal trial, and depending on what he learned from Prostitutes Easley transcripts his strategy might change.

The parties then discussed how Hanson's name Prostitutes Easley be excluded from testimony heard by the jury. This exchange terminated when the trial court stated it thought any problem could be evaluated later, and resolved satisfactorily. In Marcha hearing was held before the judge who eventually presided over the penalty phase retrial.

The prosecutor and defendant were present, but Hanson was not. After discussing the status of the case, the prosecutor raised an issue so that "Mr. Easley [could] start thinking about it at this time," namely, the possible conflict Hanson had with respect to the matter.

JB Easley Recognized by City \u0026 County

The prosecutor acquainted the judge with the background of the intervening federal criminal case, the fact that Hanson represented Plankington "and probably still does," and the fact that Hanson had elicited defendant's confession regarding his involvement with the arson.

The court and prosecutor told defendant that in the absence of his counsel he was not being asked for a statement on the issue. Defendant Prostitutes Easley stated: "What [the prosecutor] is saying is the same thing that he said before when Mr. Hanson was appointed to Prostitutes Easley. He didn't -- he went Prostitutes Easley all of this, and he is saying this and that, and since Mr. Hanson isn't present, he's taking the opportunity -- he's taking advantage of the opportunity to just say the same thing over.

It's all been said. In Aprila hearing was held on defendant's Prostitutes Easley motions. See ante, fn. The prosecutor reiterated that he felt Hanson's representation of defendant presented the possibility of a conflict of interest based on Hanson's representation of Plankington in connection with the federal civil suit, Hanson's role in obtaining defendant's confession to the arson, and Prostitutes Easley possibility that Hanson himself might be a witness about defendant's arson confession.

Hanson also noted another potential Prostitutes Easley, in that he had represented defendant's sister in a prior matter, Prostitutes Easley which Ronnie Westmoreland then defendant's sister's husband, and a witness against defendant in the Junghanses' murder trial had been a codefendant.

Hanson stated, however, that he did not believe his prior representation of defendant's sister would affect Prostitutes Easley ability to cross-examine Westmoreland. The court then advised defendant that he had Prostitutes Easley right to counsel free of Prostitutes Easley potential conflict of interest and that such counsel would be appointed for him if he so desired.

Defendant stated he wanted Hanson to represent him. As noted above, defendant filed a habeas corpus petition alleging facts outside the record which relate to the conflict between Hanson, Plankington and defendant. The petition consists essentially of Hanson's declaration under penalty of perjury, confirming the facts found in the record noted above, and certain additional facts.

On receipt of the habeas corpus petition, we issued an order to show cause. In the People's return, certain facts set forth in the petition are admitted, including i Hanson's representation of Plankington in Prostitutes Easley civil suit and ii the Prostitutes Easley that, in connection with his representation of Plankington, Hanson elicited defendant's confession to that arson.

The People do not dispute the other facts in Hanson's declaration, but allege only that they cannot admit or deny the statements because Prostitutes Easley lack of information and belief.

Because the key facts supporting defendant's claim are adequately established in the record on appeal, however, we need not rely on the additional facts adduced in the petition for habeas corpus. Sullivan U. Washington U. The court in Sullivan made clear that such a defendant must "show[] that his counsel actively represented conflicting interests," and "the possibility of conflict is insufficient to impugn a criminal conviction.

For the purposes of that suit, Plankington needed to show Martin was responsible for the arson. To Prostitutes Easley Martin's responsibility, Plankington alleged in Prostitutes Easley complaint ante, fn. In fact, it was so important to Plankington that it Prostitutes Easley shown defendant was involved in the crime and that defendant was hired by Martin that Plankington's lawyer, Hanson, obtained defendant's confession to involvement in the crime, in Prostitutes Easley for Plankington's Prostitutes Easley for Hanson's services on defendant's appeal.

At the same time, on defendant's behalf Hanson needed to raise doubt about defendant's involvement in the arson. The clearest type of conflict thus arose between Hanson's two clients: they had completely opposite interests concerning the same issue, and Hanson represented both simultaneously.

When, for example, we review a "traditional" claim of ineffective assistance of counsel i. Strickland, supra, U. Fosselman 33 Cal. This, however, is not Prostitutes Easley inquiry called for under Sullivan.

See People v. Mrockzo 35 Cal. As we suggested in Mrockzo, supra, Sullivan requires an inquiry into whether the record shows that counsel "pulled his punches," i. See, e. Kemp U. It was the only evidence other than that related to the murders introduced by the [46 Cal. The prosecution focused on the arson evidence to support its argument that although many people were involved in the Junghanses' murders, defendant was the most culpable because he was the Prostitutes Easley one who would actually commit the murders for money, just as he committed the arson for hire.

Defendant asserts Hanson's conflict precluded him from effectively cross-examining Plankington, to expose his apparent bias. As noted above, between defendant's first and second trial, developments surfaced that could Prostitutes Easley been but Prostitutes Easley not used to impeach Plankington's testimony: Hanson failed to expose Plankington's obvious Prostitutes Easley interest in establishing defendant's and Martin's involvement in the arson.

In addition, Hanson failed to present any evidence to negate or mitigate defendant's involvement with that crime. Despite these two identifiable omissions the failure to cross-examine Plankington to expose his bias or to introduce evidence negating or mitigating defendant's Prostitutes Easley in the arson the People argue defendant has failed to establish that the conflict adversely affected Hanson's performance.

In reviewing defendant's claim, we are bound by the record. Sullivan, supra, U. Consequently, [46 Cal. Kemp, supra, U. United States U. We therefore reject the People's suggestion that only Prostitutes Easley evidence" in the record can form the basis for a finding of adverse effect on counsel's performance.

And, we perceive no tactical reason why either area of inquiry would have been neglected by such counsel. The People assert there are three reasons why defendant cannot show an adverse effect on Hanson's performance.

They claim i there was significant evidence of defendant's involvement in the arson, hence Plankington's testimony was merely cumulative; ii Hanson did everything that an "unconflicted" counsel would have done to challenge the arson evidence; and iii Hanson's conflict actually helped defendant because it caused the prosecutor to refrain from introducing Prostitutes Easley confession to the arson.

We reject each argument. First, Plankington's testimony was highly relevant to the arson issue. Prostitutes Easley provided the only eyewitness testimony linking defendant Prostitutes Easley Martin; he testified that he saw Martin Prostitutes Easley defendant together in a Nevada bar within days of the arson. Plankington also provided the motive for the arson; he testified about a long-running dispute between himself and Martin, which included threats by Martin.

Moreover, Hanson's failure to adequately expose Plankington's possible bias on cross-examination was not the only adverse effect of the conflict.

Hanson also failed to introduce any of the apparently available evidence negating or mitigating his client's involvement in the arson. Next, the People assert Prostitutes Easley did everything that unconflicted counsel reasonably could have done in defendant's defense. They claim that no further cross-examination of Plankington was possible because the jury would otherwise have learned Prostitutes Easley defendant's confession, and that by simply arguing that defendant had no role in the Prostitutes Easley, Hanson adopted the strategy any competent counsel would have used.

Three face sex-trafficking charges

There are two flaws in the People's argument. First, as we discuss below, it is far from clear that the confession could have been used against defendant at the penalty trial.

Post, fn. Moreover, defense counsel could have demonstrated Plankington had a bias -- i. Counsel need only have asked Plankington whether he had a financial interest in proving defendant had been hired by Prostitutes Easley to commit the arson. The answer would Prostitutes Easley been "yes," and it would have been unnecessary to discuss defendant's confession.

Even assuming that for some reason the confession had to be revealed, competent defense counsel might still have chosen to impeach Plankington. Defense counsel could have argued that Prostitutes Easley under the circumstances the confession may have been involuntary, i.

Prostitutes Easley, of course, could make none of these arguments, given his conflicting and simultaneous representation of Plankington.

A Friday evening undercover prostitution sting ended with five arrests for Greenwood City police detectives. Easley () 46 Cal.3d , P.2d ; Cal. [¶] Mr. Plankington is the owner of the house of prostitution from Nevada and which the People.

Finally, the People assert Hanson's conflict actually benefited defendant because that conflict allegedly caused the prosecutor to stipulate that he would not present evidence of defendant's confession. The record disproves this argument. Prostitutes Easley trial, Hanson moved to exclude defendant's testimony about the arson on the Prostitutes Easley defendant had been granted immunity in connection with that testimony.

Based on the cases cited by the defense and in order to avoid any possibility of an issue on appeal in this regard, the People will not introduce the defendant's [46 Cal. This argument would have been available to any counsel representing defendant at trial, not only to Hanson. We therefore reject the People's assertion that defendant enjoyed an advantage Prostitutes Easley would not otherwise have had, by reason of Hanson's representation. The right to conflict-free counsel may Prostitutes Easley waived.

Superior Court 30 Cal. That waiver, however, must be a "'knowing, Prostitutes Easley act[] done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. In the context of a conflict presented by joint representation, we have held: "No particular form of inquiry is required, but, at a minimum, the trial court Prostitutes Easley assure itself that 1 the defendant has discussed the potential drawbacks of joint representation with his attorney, or if he wishes, outside counsel, 2 that he has been made aware of the dangers and possible consequences of joint representation in his case, 3 that he knows of his right to conflict-free representation, and Prostitutes Easley that he voluntarily wishes to waive that right.

We indulge every reasonable presumption against the waiver of unimpaired assistance of counsel. The same considerations apply here. We note that at the December trial setting conference, after hearing the public defender's explanation of the various conflicts, defendant repeatedly [46 Cal.

In early Januarydefendant rejected a suggestion that Hanson should Prostitutes Easley represent him, after the prosecutor raised the issue of Prostitutes Easley conflict because Hanson's name might be mentioned in any discussion of defendant's confession.

At the hearing in March the Prostitutes Easley that Hanson might be called as a witness was discussed, but defendant reiterated his desire that Hanson be appointed. In Aprilanother discussion of Hanson's possible conflict occurred. The trial court advised defendant of his right to Prostitutes Easley free Prostitutes Easley any potential conflict, and that such counsel would be appointed for him if he chose.

Defendant again indicated his desire to have Hanson represent him. Prostitutes Easley none of these hearings was there an indication that Hanson had discussed the conflict issue with defendant, or that defendant was offered the opportunity to discuss that matter with independent counsel.

Although it appears the trial court informed defendant of his right to conflict-free counsel, defendant was never asked for a waiver. Finally, our review of the record does not reveal defendant was ever advised of Prostitutes Easley full range of dangers and possible consequences of the conflicted representation in his case.

Prostitutes Easley, the People insist defendant twice "expressly waived" any conflict. These two asserted waivers occurred at the March and April hearings.

At the March hearing, Hanson was not present. As a result, the court and the prosecutor specifically stated that defendant was not being asked for any statement in the absence of his attorney. It would be difficult, in the face of such a statement, to now construe defendant's remarks at that hearing as an express waiver.

Furthermore, neither the prosecutor nor the court fully explained to defendant the conflicts that faced Hanson. And, although the prosecutor informed the court about the possibility of a conflict, the only conflict mentioned was Prostitutes Easley involvement in obtaining defendant's confession, which, the prosecutor explained, meant that Hanson would face an ethical and Prostitutes Easley conflict in putting defendant on the stand.

As in Mroczko, we believe defendant's alleged waiver at the March hearing is evidence that he did not understand the true conflict issue, and that he perceived the prosecutor's concern simply as an attempt to Prostitutes Easley Hanson from representing him. At the April hearing, the discussion focused on the Prostitutes Easley that Hanson might be required to be a witness.

When the prosecutor noted that Hanson had represented Plankington Prostitutes Easley the arson matter and that Plankington was a probable witness at the penalty retrial, Hanson stated he felt this would not be a problem in that, if necessary, the prosecution had Prostitutes Easley witnesses to testify regarding the confessionand that the judge who presided at the January hearing had agreed with that assessment.

Hanson also stated he believed defendant's confession had to be excluded in any event, because of the federal immunity grant. Hanson then raised his prior representation of defendant's sister, and at this point the asserted "waiver" occurred. The judge told defendant that he had "a right to counsel who would be free of any potential conflict of interest and that such counsel would be appointed for him should he so desire.

This exchange, however, was inadequate to Prostitutes Easley defendant aware of the dangers and possible consequences of the conflicted representation. No one explained to defendant that Hanson owed a conflicting duty of loyalty Prostitutes Easley Plankington that could affect his ability to cross-examine Plankington and attack the prosecution's arson evidence.

Prostitutes Easley consequences addressed by the court and other parties were of an entirely different and less virulent sort.

4. Prostitution in its relation to the public health Author(s):: Easley, E. T. (Edward Tandy), , author; Publication: Louisville, Ky. Bryan Police arrested two people on prostitution charges at a local park. Elizabeth Morrow, 48, and George Easley, 58, were arrested Monday.

In discussing the conflict, the parties focused primarily on the possibility that Hanson might have to testify about the facts surrounding defendant's confession. This facet of the conflict, moreover, was presented by the court and Prostitutes Easley Hanson as a surmountable obstacle, and was conveyed to defendant as Prostitutes Easley no serious Prostitutes Easley.

Because the court identified only a minor portion of the potential consequences arising from Hanson's representation of Plankington and defendant, we cannot conclude Prostitutes Easley defendant fully understood the real scope of the conflict and intelligently waived it.

Furthermore, the trial court was too eager to accept Hanson's representations that there was no conflict, or that problems posed by any conflict could be evaded. It is troublesome that, having learned that it was Hanson who had obtained defendant's Prostitutes Easley to the arson, and that Hanson represented Plankington in a federal civil suit, the court made no further inquiry into the possible effect of the conflict Prostitutes Easley defendant's trial.

Instead, [46 Cal. As was true of the Prostitutes Easley in Mroczko, Hanson's behavior "strongly suggests that he was unwilling or unable to assess accurately whether his representation of [defendant] was in [the client's] best interest The very fact that he was willing to represent such clearly conflicting Prostitutes Easley despite the ethical Prostitutes Easley legal ramifications of his position, raises questions about his judgment, or at least his impartiality.

We conclude that the failure adequately to explain to Prostitutes Easley the consequences of Hanson's conflict precludes a finding that defendant knowingly waived the conflict. Consequently, they assert any conflict raised by the representation must be weighed against defendant's right to counsel of choice. See Maxwell, supra, Prostitutes Easley Cal.

The situation in this case was not the equivalent, however, of that in Maxwell. There, the defendant both selected and paid his own counsel. The latter fact is the crux of the definition of "retained.

Because counsel was provided by the state, the trial court was not required to appoint Hanson, even though he was the attorney whose services defendant preferred. Drumgo v. Superior Court 8 Cal. This rule holds true regardless of whether the requested attorney is a particular public defender or, as here, a private assigned counsel.

Failure to appoint the attorney desired by a defendant is not interference with the right to counsel of choice. Conversely, the Prostitutes Easley that a defendant is pleased with counsel appointed for him by a court does not transform his attorney into retained counsel.

Because Hanson was not retained counsel, the special considerations that Prostitutes Easley be taken into account when a court contemplates the removal over objection of a retained attorney because of a conflict do not come into play here.

Prostitutes Easley conclude Hanson's simultaneous representation of defendant and Plankington resulted in an actual conflict of interest, and that Hanson's [46 Cal. We further conclude that the conflict was not knowingly and intelligently waived. Accordingly, the penalty judgment must Prostitutes Easley reversed. We discuss the Prostitutes Easley issue for guidance at retrial.

The court gave two instructions about the jury's consideration of accomplice testimony. One defined an accomplice, and the other informed the jury that the testimony of an accomplice incriminating the defendant should be viewed with distrust. In addition, the court instructed the jury that Donald Davis, Kenneth Davis, Smith and Westmoreland were all accomplices as a matter of law.

Defendant claims that, had the jury been instructed that the various accomplices' testimony needed to be corroborated, it might have realized that others were as much or more Prostitutes Easley in the murders as was defendant, and might therefore have voted for Prostitutes Easley sentence of life without possibility Prostitutes Easley parole rather than death.

The People appear to assert there was no error, and that there was no duty to instruct sua sponte in this case. We agree. Prostitutes Easley cases in which we have required corroboration of accomplice testimony at the penalty phase can be distinguished. Varnum 66 Cal. McClellan 71 Cal. Miranda 44 Cal. PDF documents are not translated. Resources Sitemap Accessibility Help Center. Compare to: - No Earlier Versions. Easley Overview. Easley, SC Code of Ordinances.

Share Download Bookmark Print. No certificate shall be issued by the city to any person to operate a taxicab or other like vehicle within the city unless such vehicle is covered by standard limits liability insurance, as set by the State of South Carolina, and proof of same is exhibited to the City Clerk and Treasurer.

Each policy of insurance shall contain a clause authorizing or Prostitutes Easley the insurer to Prostitutes Easley the city of any cancellation thereof, and immediately upon each notice of cancellation, the city shall revoke such license to operate Prostitutes Easley taxicab or other like Prostitutes Easley within the city.

Each policy of insurance shall name the city as an additional insured party and also indemnify the city. Hosted by: American Legal Publishing Corporation. Back to Code Library.