United States v. Diamond
United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals
65 M.J. 876 (2007)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Army Staff Sergeant John Diamond (defendant) was accused of conspiring with Dr. Michelle Theer to murder Theer’s husband and of actually murdering the husband. During the court-martial, Diamond was represented by military and civilian counsel. Diamond was convicted and appealed. On appeal, for the first time, Diamond claimed that his alleged coconspirator, Theer, had paid his civilian attorneys’ initial retainer fee. Because either alleged conspirator could have performed the murder, Diamond’s and Theer’s interests conflicted with each other. Diamond argued that Theer’s payment created a conflict of interest for his civilian attorneys, which the attorneys had not disclosed to the court. Diamond further argued that this conflict caused the attorneys to provide him with ineffective assistance of counsel during the court-martial proceedings. The civilian attorneys denied any knowledge of receiving a fee payment from Theer. The Court of Criminal Appeals ordered a DuBay hearing to gather evidence about the alleged payment. The DuBay judge determined that (1) Theer had made a $1,500 retainer payment to the civilian attorneys, (2) the attorneys had not known that Theer was the source of the payment, (3) Theer never directed the attorneys to conduct their representation of Diamond in any particular way, and (4) Diamond’s family had paid the remaining $11,500 of the civilian attorneys’ fees in the case.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Schenck, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.