Sep 23, 2021 | Murder
Daniel Decker, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Decker was convicted by a jury of one count of first-degree premeditated murder and is currently serving a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. On appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition because the proof presented established that he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel. More specifically, the petitioner alleges that the postconviction court erred in multiple aspects, specifically: (1) that the court held that an expert witness had the duty and burden to present her opinions more completely at trial; (2) that the court erred by admitting a letter written by the petitioner to trial counsel after the conviction; (3) that the court should have recused itself in the matter; (4) denying relief because the petitioner met his burden of proof under the Strickland standard to establish ineffective assistance of counsel; (5) that the court erred by not reviewing trial counsel’s performance under the Chronic standard; and (6) that the court erred by failing to address all issues raised by the petitioner in its order denying relief. Court of Criminal Appeals finds no error and affirms the denial of the petition.
Full case State v. Decker
Sep 22, 2021 | Criminal Defense, News
The disappearance of Marsha Brantley of Cleveland, Tennessee raised suspicions, but there was never any evidence she was a victim of foul play. Her husband, Donnie, was charged twice in the last 8 years for her murder, despite the lack of proof he had ever done wrong. Donnie retained Chattanooga criminal defense Attorney Lee Davis of Davis & Hoss, PC to act as his defense. Following many pretrial actions, the prosecution was convinced to dismiss the case, particularly in recognition of “Rule 29: Rule of Directed Verdict”.
Due to the unusual circumstances revolving around the case, it was brought to the attention of major news groups across the country, including the popular CBS program, 48 Hours. To learn more about this significant victory for Davis & Hoss, PC and the full details of the Marsha Brantley disappearance case, you can click here to view the entire 48 Hours episode that discusses it. You can also click here to view an abridged clip of the episode that focuses on “Rule 29” and how it proved to be the lynchpin of Donnie’s defense.
Would you like to know more about David & Hoss, PC? Do you need to speak with one of our firm’s Chattanooga criminal defense lawyers for a case of your own? Call 423.825.9747 or contact our team online today to request an initial consultation.
Sep 20, 2021 | Criminal Defense
On October 10, 2019, the American Board of Criminal Lawyers (ABCL) met in Charleston, South Carolina and unanimously accepted Lee Davis as a Fellow. He was nominated by ABCL member Jerry Summers.
“I’m grateful for this recognition and am humbled to be joining the ranks of nationally recognized courtroom lawyers with members from our region like Jerry Summers and Bobby Lee Cook,” Davis said.
Standards of acceptance for ABCL Fellowship include:
Ethical character
10+ years of criminal trial experience (including major felony trial successes)
Exceptional criminal defense litigation skills
Recommendations from esteemed jurists and current ABCL members
As a Fellow, Davis will be able to join nationally renowned practitioners at future ABCL meetings, where members from the U.S., Canada, and Europe discuss the best strategies by which to preserve the freedoms of all those accused of criminal conduct.
At Davis & Hoss, PC, our lawyers have decades of experience and a track record of client satisfaction. If you are facing criminal accusations, you need nationally acclaimed legal support on your side. Call (423) 825-9747 or schedule your consultation today for more information about what we can do for you.
Sep 17, 2021 | Supreme Court
Justice Roberts’ 2013 annual report on the Supreme Court. Here is a link to the Report.
Sep 17, 2021 | Domestic Assault, Supreme Court
U.S. v. Castleman
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a Tennessee case about whether one man’s conviction for domestic assault is sufficient to justify him being unable to own a gun. The case, U.S. v. Castleman, will answer the question of whether the state conviction rises to the level needed to qualify under a federal weapon ban.
The case began back in 2001 when James Castleman pleaded guilty to a single count of domestic assault, a misdemeanor under Tennessee law. Under federal law this conviction would prevent him from purchasing firearms. The current federal legislation bans not only the purchase, but also the possession or transportation of guns and ammunition by anyone who has been convicted of even low-level domestic violence.
Years after his guilty plea, federal agents launched an investigation into a murder that took place in Chicago and ended up connecting Castleman and his wife to a scheme that involved running guns on the black market. According to federal investigators, Castleman’s wife would purchase the guns from a legitimate dealer, claiming that she was the one who would use and possess the weapons. However, after filling out the required federal paperwork, the woman would then turn the guns over to her husband who would resell them to others.
The case was taken before a grand jury where Castleman was indicted on two counts of illegal possession of firearms. A federal judge then decided to dismiss the charges, ultimately holding that Castleman’s misdemeanor conviction for domestic assault did not qualify as “domestic violence” under federal law. The federal law required a person be convicted of using or attempting to use violent physical force, something the judge decided did not take place in Castleman’s case.
Castleman’s case then moved on to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Sixth Circuit agreed that the government improperly used Tennessee’s overly broad definition of domestic assault to prevent Castleman from owning a gun. Tennessee’s law included everything from causing an abrasion to requiring hospitalization under the umbrella of domestic assault; something the Sixth Circuit said meant that some offenders were unjustly denied the ability to own guns under the more serious domestic violence provision of federal gun laws.
The Supreme Court will now hear the case and decide whether a conviction for misdemeanor domestic assault in Tennessee qualifies as a conviction for domestic violence under the federal weapons ban.
To read the full opinion from the Sixth Circuit, click here.
See Our Related Blog Posts:
Supreme Court Upholds Trial Court’s Dismissal of DUI Charges After Video of Arrest Lost
Supreme Court Orders Judges To Stay Away From Fact Finding Regarding Mandatory Minimums
