Daniel Lee Lewis v. D.A. Mayle

Good Law
391 F.3d 989·2004 WL 2699900·2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 24595
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 29, 200403-16152California4,425 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ferguson, J.

This case involves a murder that only one of two people could have committed: the appellant, Daniel Lee Lewis, or his nephew, Steven Berg. Lewis was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to an aggregate term of 95 years to life. Berg served as the primary witness for the prosecution. Despite the antagonistic positions of the two men, Lewis was represented at trial by a lawyer who had represented Berg on another matter immediately prior to undertaking Lewis’ defense.

Lewis contends that this successive representation presented a conflict of interest that adversely affected his defense. The California Court of Appeal rejected Lewis’ conflict of interest claim and affirmed the judgment. The U.S.' District Court for the Eastern District of California denied his federal habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We both reverse and remand with directions to grant the habeas petition.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

A. Evidence Relating to the Crime

Kurtis Mitchell was killed by a shotgun blast in El Dorado County, California, on June 22, 1996. A few days before the shooting, Lewis and Tori Grimm, Lewis’ employee and close friend, found…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.