To keep creating new content, we kindly appreciate any donation you can give to help the Murderpedia project stay alive. Applying this standard to the facts of this case, the record is clear that Burger's counsel was actively representing both Burger and his co-indictee Stevens and that an actual conflict of interest between the two violated Burger's right to the effective assistance of counsel.1 First, it is apparent that Burger's counsel actively represented both Burger and Stevens. Thus, appellant's argument that no pretrial conflict of interest could have arisen due to the district attorney's refusal to plea bargain is contradicted by the record Christopher A. Ralph Kemp, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center, Respondent- Appellant, Cross-Appellee. ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before VANCE and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges, and ALLGOOD*, District Judge. In reaching our decision we adopted the district court's opinion, Blake v. We have many plans and enthusiasm to keep expanding and making Murderpedia a better site, but we really need your help for this. The state's evidence, including Thomas Stevens's confession, showed that on the night of September 4, 1977, Stevens was drinking beer in the enlisted men's club with Christopher A. Both Burger and Stevens were charged with and indicted for the murder of Roger Honeycutt. PER CURIAM: Our previous consideration of the merits of this case resulted in reversal of the district court's grant of a writ of habeas corpus setting aside petitioner's death sentence. Burger, a friend and fellow serviceman at Fort Stewart. Both Burger and Stevens were appointed counsel by the trial court at approximately the same time, and within a few weeks after they had been charged with the crime.
The CT scans had allegedly still not been done four hours later and the lawsuit alleges they were never carried out.Court documents state that doctors recommended at 11.42pm that Kyira go in for surgery to identify the source of bleeding.She was pronounced dead at 2.22am and the autopsy ruled the cause of death was 'due to hemorrhagic shock due to acute hemoperitoneum' following the c-section.The lawsuit filed by her husband is seeking damages for wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress.After dropping Botsford off, Stevens and Burger drove to Jack's Mini Mart in Jesup for milk and sandwiches. State, supra, the court emphasized that a finding of "serious psychological abuse" required a showing that "the defendant inflicted deliberate, offensive and prolonged pain on his victim prior to death." 297 S. Thus, "the mere apprehension of death, immediately before the fatal wounds are inflicted" was found insufficient to justify a finding of "torture" under Sec. (b)(7) based on a finding that the defendant inflicted either psychological or physical torture upon his victim. At no time in his representation of Burger did Leaphart or the trial court ever inform Burger of a possible conflict of interest. "An actual conflict of interest occurs when a defense attorney places himself in a situation 'inherently conducive to divided loyalties.' " Zuck v. Leaphart consulted confidentially with Stevens, aided in preparing his case for trial, and prepared the briefs for both of his appeals.
Later, when a police car appeared to be following them, they decided they had to get out of the car, so Burger drove to a pond in a wooded area. Since the Georgia law therefore follows common usage in finding that the deliberate infliction of mental anguish constitutes "torture," we conclude that the trial court's failure to elaborate or define the term further does not run afoul of the rule in Sandstrom. We can discern no principled basis for attempting to distinguish the two, and it seems highly questionable that Justice Stewart meant to draw such a distinction in Godfrey. Whether analyzed as a situation where one attorney, Leaphart, represented both Burger and Stevens,4 or where one law firm represented both Burger and Stevens,5 the end result on these facts is the same: Leaphart was actively involved in the defense of both to the extent that a conflict of interest was clearly established. The conflict must be shown to be actual, not speculative, before it will cause representation to fail Sixth Amendment standards. Alabama, 588 F.2d 436, 439 (5th Cir.1979) (quoting Castillo v. "Whatever may have been the extent of each attorney's participation in the trial of the ... The lawsuit alleges that the doctors in charge of Kyira's care failed to properly respond to her symptoms and adequately treat her when she started bleeding after the birth.When doctors operated on her hours after the birth, they allegedly found three liters of blood in her abdomen, court documents claim.Hatchett recently announced the formation of the Hatchett Firm – specializing in risk and crisis management, as well as innovative and effective closing and settlement strategies.The firm engages in a national network of Attorneys to handle complex civil litigation specializing in catastrophic injuries and mass tort litigation.TV judge Glenda Hatchett's daughter-in-law, Kyira Dixon Johnson, died at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles in April 2016 hours after the scheduled c-section delivery of her second son (pictured above)Kyira gave birth to their second son Langston at 2.33pm on April 12 and she was taken to recovery at 3pm where she was able to 'skin to skin' bond with the baby.