The TBA Young Lawyers Division's Mock Trial Committee is seeking sitting judges and attorneys to serve as volunteers at the 2025 Tennessee State High School Mock Trial Competition, which will take place March 21-22 in Nashville. The 2025 case material was released in December and district mock trial competitions will take place in February. Teams will argue the civil case of Lee Jasper v. Reece Witherfork, which takes place at a rodeo. Teams prevailing at the district level will advance to the state competition. The problem, rules and other competition information can be found on the TBA website. Those interested in helping at the state competition should indicate availability on this form. This year also marks the inaugural Artist in the Courtroom Competition, which invites student artists to interpret mock trial courtroom scenes during the district competition. The first, second and third place entries will be announced at the state competition award ceremony. The top student artist will join the state championship team in representing Tennessee at the National High School Mock Trial Championship in Phoenix, Arizona, on May 8-10.

The Tennessee Bar Association’s Disability Law Section will host a Zoom roundtable discussion on Thursday, Jan. 23, at 2:30 p.m. CST / 3:30 p.m. EST. This roundtable will be an open discussion hosted by members of the section executive council.

Join this interactive discussion to share your experiences, listen to other section members and/or ask questions. Please complete the RSVP before 12:30 p.m. CST / 1:30 p.m. EST on Jan. 23 to receive the email invitation to join the Zoom meeting.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has amended Rule 17 of its rules to update the uniform judgment document that must be used in all cases falling within the Tennessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989. Rule 17 provides for a uniform judgment document to be used in all trial courts of record in all cases brought under the act. The new form must be used beginning Jan. 15. It can be accessed in today's order.

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Defendant Shefiu A. Hanson, who is currently serving a 46-month sentence for wire fraud, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Hanson moved under the newly created U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which retroactively applies to defendants sentenced before the Amendment went into effect on November 1, 2023. U.S.S.G § 1B1.10(d). On appeal, Hanson argues that the district court erred in concluding that Hanson had caused his victims substantial financial hardship and, therefore, was ineligible for a sentence reduction. We affirm the district court’s order.

SUTTON, Chief Judge. A jury convicted Clarence Fry of the aggravated felony murder of his girlfriend, Tamela Hardison. Consistent with the jury’s recommendation, an Ohio trial court sentenced him to death. The Ohio courts affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal and denied his request for collateral relief. Fry petitioned for a writ of federal habeas corpus, which the district court denied. We affirm.

A Davidson County jury found the Defendant, Keiresha Majors, guilty of one count of second degree murder, for which she was sentenced to twenty-five years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, the admission of recordings of a Facebook Live broadcast she recorded shortly after the victim’s murder, the restriction of cross-examination of a witness, and the length of her sentence. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Petitioner, Jason Collins, was convicted of one count of possession of .5 grams or more of methamphetamine with the intent to sell, one count of possession of .5 grams or more of methamphetamine with the intent to deliver, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court merged the two methamphetamine convictions and sentenced Petitioner to serve a total effective sentence of twenty years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days in confinement. This court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal. Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, and the post-conviction court denied the petition after a hearing. On appeal, Petitioner asserts that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to file a motion for new trial, in failing to seek suppression of drugs and other evidence seized from his home, and in failing to conduct a “complete and accurate” investigation of a defense witness. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post- conviction court.

The plaintiff took his car to a body shop for repair. The owner of the body shop, who had obtained title of the vehicle through an unknown means, sold the car to the defendant, CarMax. The plaintiff brought suit against the owner of the body shop and CarMax, seeking the return of his car. The trial court granted summary judgment to CarMax, finding it held valid title as a good faith purchaser for value. Because we find that the undisputed facts do not support a conclusion that CarMax is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

Belmont College of Law is looking for volunteers to help with a power of attorney (POA) clinic at Casa Azafran on Jan. 11 from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. CST. Morning and afternoon shifts are available, and lunch will be provided. Lawyers who volunteer will be helping clients fill out POAs for care of a minor child alongside two Belmont law students. Translators will be provided. To sign up to help, please email Ginny.Blake@belmont.edu.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Zyqiius Quade’ Barnes, of one count of second degree murder and one count of reckless aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of seventeen years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred when it included a “defense of a third person” instruction in its jury charge and when it enhanced his sentence. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.