This week's installment of TBA's Indigent Representation Primer is now available. The new post highlights the demand for indigent defense in the criminal justice system and the impact on the broader legal system when representation is not readily available. Millions of Americans cannot afford a private attorney, relying on appointed counsel, whether public defenders or private attorneys, who are designated to take indigent cases. Available research estimates at least 80% of criminal defendants at the state level and 90% of defendants in federal felony cases are eligible for appointed legal counsel. The criminal justice system continues to balance these growing needs with adequate funding, manageable caseloads, and consistent standards for appointed counsel. The strain on appointed counsel systems is not just a problem for criminal defendants, the entire legal system is impacted by delayed trials, overburdened courts and disrupted proceedings. In addition, challenges in indigent representation systems ultimately affect victims, the families of defendants, children caught in the system and the larger community. The TBA Indigent Representation Primer will look at more of these indirect effects in upcoming installments. Read past primer posts.

The defendant, Keith Lamar March, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of unlawful possession of a weapon after having been convicted of a felony crime of violence, failure ot drive on the right side of the roadway, and evading arrest. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of fourteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. Upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Montgomery County jury convicted Defendant, Esperanza Mariaelena Joy Flores, of driving under the influence (“DUI”), DUI per se, failure to yield to an emergency vehicle, and possession of an open alcohol container. Defendant argues on appeal that: (1) the trial court erred in not dismissing the charges after the State failed to preserve evidence; (2) the trial court improperly limited her cross-examination of a witness; (3) the trial court improperly limited Defendant’s testimony; (4) the prosecutor made improper closing argument; (5) the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction for failure to yield to an emergency vehicle; (6) the record was not properly preserved because a court reporter was not provided to transcribe the proceedings; and (7) she is entitled to cumulative error relief. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, April R. Austin, was indicted by the Knox County Grand Jury for four counts of theft of property valued over $2500 and four counts of theft of property valued over $1000. The defendant pled guilty to one count of theft of property valued over $2500 and one count of shoplifting. Per the terms of the plea agreement, the defendant agreed to concurrent sentences of three years for her theft conviction and eleven months and twenty- nine days for her shoplifting conviction with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court order the defendant to serve one year in confinement for her theft conviction with the reminder suspended to probation. Additionally, the trial court ordered the defendant to serve her concurrent sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days for her shoplifting conviction ni the county workhouse. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in ordering split confinement and denying her request for full probation. Upon our review of the record, the parties' briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A property owner hired a local contractor to build a custom-designed home. A payment dispute arose midway through construction, and the contractor stopped working. The owner paid others to repair and complete the home. Then he filed suit against the contractor asserting multiple theories of recovery. Among other things, the trial court found the contractor liable for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation. As compensatory damages, it awarded the owner the additional costs he incurred to repair and complete the home above the contract price. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for recalculation of compensatory damages.

Mother and Father appeal the termination of their parental rights. As to Mother, the trial court found three grounds for termination: substantial noncompliance with a parenting plan, persistent conditions, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. Regarding Father, the trial court found four grounds for termination: severe child abuse, imprisonment for two years for conduct qualifying as severe child abuse, imprisonment for ten years when the child is under eight years of age, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. The trial court also determined that terminating each parent’s rights was in the child’s best interest. The trial court properly determined that a termination ground existed as to each parent and that terminating each parent’s rights was in the child’s best interest. We affirm.

In this appeal, the employer appeals the trial court’s determination that the employee is entitled to a new panel of physicians. The employee reported an injury to her right foot, which ultimately resulted in a diagnosis of complex regional pain syndrome. Following treatment, she was released at maximum medical improvement with a permanent impairment rating, and, after a compensation hearing, the court awarded permanent partial disability benefits and future reasonable and necessary medical benefits. The employee returned to the authorized treating physician one time, during which the physician discharged the employee from his practice. The employee requested a new panel, which the employer denied. Following a hearing, the trial court ordered the employer to provide a new panel, and the employer has appealed. Upon careful consideration of the record, we affirm the trial court’s order and certify it as final.

The Tennessee Department of Correction has created a new lethal injection protocol, clearing the way for the state to schedule executions again, Knox News reports. Gov. Bill Lee called off all executions indefinitely in 2022 and ordered an independent investigation into the state's lethal injection procedures. The investigation found that the state had failed to follow the protocol it implemented in 2018. Under the new protocol, the state will administer a single drug, pentobarbital, replacing the three-drug cocktail previously used, the paper reports. "The death penalty is an extremely serious matter, and that is why I instructed the Tennessee Department of Correction to review the lethal injection protocol to leave no question that procedures are correctly followed," Lee said. Federal Public Defender Kelley Henry responded to the announcement noting the lack of detail and said she is "awaiting the release of the United States Department of Justice’s review of the use of single drug pentobarbital in executions," which Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered in 2021. The revised protocol was made in consultation with the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office. The Tennessee Supreme Court will be responsible for scheduling execution dates.

Funeral arrangements are now available for former Shelby County judge Donna Fields. Visitation will be held Jan. 2, 2025, from 4-6 p.m. CST at Canale Funeral Directors, 2700 Union Ave. Extended, Memphis 38112. A funeral mass will be held the next day at 1:30 p.m. CST at St. Anne's Catholic Church Highland, 706 S. Highland St., Memphis 38111 with burial to follow at Elmwood Cemetery. The family requests that memorial donations go to organizations that support and protect four-legged creatures, which Fields loved so much. Read more about her life.

President Joe Biden secured the 235th judicial confirmation of his presidency last week. According to AP News, Biden and Senate Democrats have focused on adding women, minorities and public defenders to the federal judiciary, with about two-thirds of his appointees being women and a solid majority being people of color. Biden has also prioritized appointing civil rights lawyers, public defenders, and labor rights attorneys to broaden the professional backgrounds of the judiciary. More than 45 of his appointees are public defenders, and more than two dozen have served as civil rights lawyers. “When I ran for President, I promised to build a bench that looks like America and reflects the promise of our nation. And I’m proud I kept my commitment to bolstering confidence in judicial decision-making and outcomes,” Biden said in a statement. The latest confirmation could be Biden’s last, leaving office with one Supreme Court justice, 45 appeals court judges, 187 district court judges and two judges on the U.S. Court of International Trade, NBC News reports.