Montana Overturns Sanction Of Defense Counsel

The Montana Supreme Court reversed monetary sanctions imposed on an attorney representing a client charged with securities and insurance fraud

From its beginning, the case was burdened with the challenges faced by all courts during 2020-2021, related to management of proceedings during the Covid-19 pandemic. Among other things, Covid-19 precautions included limiting group sizes, maintaining physical distance, utilization of face masks, and occasional postponement of court sessions. The Nineteenth Judicial District Court itself had limited staffing and was managed by a single judge. The courthouse was too small to conduct the trial in compliance with pandemic regulations, so the District Court secured the Memorial Events Center in Libby, Montana, for Hartman’s trial. The case was continued multiple times due to the pandemic, but the District Court eventually scheduled the trial to run for nine days, beginning Tuesday, January 26, 2021.

Defense counsel objected to time limitations imposed by the judge

On the morning of Day 7, the District Court denied Badaruddin’s motion for more time. During its oral ruling on the motion, the District Court informed the parties that, on Day 5, it had started counting each side’s time by hours, rather than days. Badaruddin then commenced presentation of Hartman’s defense. Near the end of Day 8, Thursday, February 4, 2021, Badaruddin finished examining his eleventh witness at 4:45 p.m. The District Court informed Badaruddin that he had fifteen minutes of time remaining for presentation of his defense. However, the final defense witness was Hartman, who Badaruddin indicated was going to testify. Badaruddin explained it would not be possible to get through Hartman’s testimony in the fifteen minutes remaining. Citing McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. 414, 138 S. Ct. 1500 (2018), Badaruddin argued that Hartman was entitled to testify and that preventing him from doing so because of his own mismanagement of the time, which Badaruddin said was ineffective assistance of counsel, and was reversible error.

The court eventually declared a mistrial; the attorney sought habeas relief in federal court

Upon Hartman’s petition for habeas corpus, the U.S. District Court ruled that the District Court’s mistrial declaration was erroneous, citing the procedure that had been utilized, particularly that Hartman had no notice the District Court was considering a mistrial and no opportunity to respond, and ultimately holding that the decision was incorrect under the circumstances of Hartman’s Friday morning offer to limit his testimony to 90 minutes, thus depriving Hartman of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and his right against double jeopardy…

The court here reversed monetary sanctions of $51,923.61 on the attorney

The order of the U.S. District Court, affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted habeas relief on the basis of federal, double jeopardy protections, and included findings that Badruddin’s actions “negated the trial court’s finding that he was deliberately protracting the trial,” were “precisely what the trial court, his client’s constitutional rights, and the standards of the legal profession required of him,” and constituted “a hallmark of competence.” While the individual assessment of an attorney’s performance by a federal judge may not implicate the Supremacy Clause, which “provides ‘a rule of decision’ for determining whether federal or state law applies in a particular situation,” Kansas v. Garcia, 589 U.S. 191, 202, 140 S. Ct. 791, 801 (2020) (citation omitted), we are mindful of the federal court’s assessment of the case and give it respectful consideration.

Thus

it is necessary to conclude the District Court erred and that the sanction order must be reversed.

(Mike Frisch)