The Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) on behalf of the Tennessee Supreme Court has proposed a plan to develop a new structure for handling criminal conflicts and civil appointments for indigent clients. Under the plan, the Tennessee Supreme Court would establish an “Office of Indigent Conflicts and Civil Counsel,” with oversight by an “Indigent Representation Commission.” These entities would provide and manage appointed counsel for individuals who are constitutionally and statutorily entitled to representation. The office would manage an estimated 76,000 cases each year. In developing this plan, the Supreme Court and AOC consulted with legislative leadership and other stakeholders, and examined best practices from other jurisdictions. The Supreme Court and the TBA believe that this new structure will better address the impending crisis in the administration of justice in Tennessee and will also relieve trial judges of the burden of appointing attorneys on their own. Learn more about the plan and indigent representation in Tennessee. Watch for more details about the plan in a series of articles to run in TBA Today.

“How to Sue the Klan: The Legacy of the Chattanooga Five” will be screened on Feb. 26 at the Chattanooga State Community College. The event will take place from 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. CST in the CC Bond Auditorium of the HUM Building. The film tells the story of four Black women who were shot by local Ku Klux Klan members. In criminal court, an all-white jury acquitted two of the Klansmen and sentenced the third to just nine months. Civil unrest followed the verdict, which also caught the attention of the Center for Constitutional Rights. The center successfully sued the shooters in federal civil court on behalf of the women. The court awarded today’s equivalent of over $1.5 million and issued an injunction against all Klan activities in the city. The suit also served as a precedent to go after the Klan in cities across the nation. Learn more about the story and the film.

Tens of thousands of immigrant children who arrived in the United States without a parent could lose legal representation after federal funding was abruptly put on hold this week, the Daily Memphian reports. Casey Bryant, executive director of Memphis’ Advocates of Immigrant Rights, tells the paper that no one knows how long the stop-work order will last or if funding will eventually resume. The group says it has 200 active cases with minors in Tennessee, Arkansas and Northern Mississippi. Another group, Latino Memphis, has a caseload of 126. Both groups say they will find alternative sources of funding to continue their work. “We’ll figure out how we find the money to do this … we have to keep going. We cannot let these children be hanging out there,” said Latino Memphis Executive Director Mauricio Calvo.

The public has lost the ability to peruse Davidson County Criminal cases as the only mechanism for doing so — two publicly accessible computers at the court — have been removed. The Nashville Banner reports that the court removed the computers because confidential personal information was being entered into the system. “We’re doing that out of an abundance of caution,” Chief Deputy Criminal Court Clerk Julius Sloss said. Those seeking affidavits, legal filings or judicial orders now must make targeted requests for records. The Tennessee Coalition for Open Government Executive Director Deborah Fisher says that is a problem. “The public has a huge interest in the justice system and journalists, who report for the public, have an interest in being able to have access to the system,” she said.

Legal officials in Tennessee are adjusting to a new law that will lengthen sentences for some children convicted of crimes, the Tennessean reports. “Blended sentencing,” which took effect at the start of the year, allows prosecutors to try some youth as “serious youth offenders” who can be given both juvenile and adult sentences. The adult sentence is paused until the child turns 19, when it can be imposed or revoked depending on a handful of criteria. Supporters of blended sentencing argue it closes loopholes that enabled juveniles to commit serious, violent offenses. Opponents say it weakens judicial discretion and hurts children who are not well served by blanket requirements for longer sentences. Nashville Juvenile Court Judge Sheila Calloway talked with the paper about the new law and the challenges she sees with its implementation.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Brittney Silvers, an active member of the United States Army, was shot and killed while living on Fort Campbell, an Army base on the border of Kentucky and Tennessee. A jury found Brittney’s estranged husband, Victor Silvers (“Silvers”), guilty of her premeditated murder. Following his conviction, the district court sentenced Silvers to life in prison. On appeal, Silvers challenges his conviction and sentence on three grounds. First, he argues that the district court erred in taking judicial notice of the fact that Fort Campbell was within the United States’ special maritime and territorial jurisdiction. Second, he argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying Silvers’s motion to exclude a juror who wore a shirt supporting military veterans during the trial and who had served in the United States Navy, and in failing to ask a broader question during voir dire about prospective jurors’ prior military service. Third, he challenges the constitutionality of his mandatory life sentence, arguing that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Because the district court did not err in taking judicial notice of the fact of the United States’ jurisdiction over Fort Campbell, nor did it abuse its discretion in denying Silvers relief based on Juror 5’s alleged bias, we AFFIRM his conviction. And because Silvers’s life sentence is constitutional under binding Supreme Court precedent, we also AFFIRM his sentence.

COLE, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Bernhard Jakits of eight counts of child- exploitation-related crimes. On appeal, Jakits argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the convictions on all eight counts, that the district court incorrectly instructed the jury on elements of the charged offenses, and that the district court excluded evidence in violation of his constitutional rights. We affirm his convictions on all eight counts. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Jakits’s convictions on all eight counts.

Tennessee Bonding Company (“Tennessee Bonding”) claims that the trial court erred by temporarily suspending its bonding authority for thirty days and then restricting its bonding authority for a period of one year for violating local bail bonding rules that required a source hearing for bonds of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) or more. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Defendant, John Edward Roach, was convicted by a Hardin County jury of three drug- related offenses for which he received an effective sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-425 (a)(1)-(2). The Defendant argues that the State failed to establish (1) that the items seized from the search of his home constituted drug paraphernalia and (2) that the Defendant intended to use any of the seized items for an illicit purpose. Upon our review, we affirm.

Petitioner, Darius Mack, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his post-conviction petition. He argues that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his petition without first appointing counsel because his petition presented a colorable claim for relief and the issues were not previously determined. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition as it stated a colorable claim and warranted the appointment of counsel. Thus, we reverse the order of summary dismissal and remand the case for further proceedings pursuant to the Post-Conviction Procedure Act.