A Lincoln County jury convicted the Defendant, Juan Manuel Mejia Nunez, of three counts of aggravated sexual battery and two counts of sexual battery by an authority figure. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of eighteen years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by (1) permitting several of the State’s witnesses to remain in the courtroom throughout the trial; (2) admitting testimony that referenced and described the victims’ forensic interviews; (3) admitting testimony from a police investigator about the behavioral characteristics of child sexual abuse victims; and (4) limiting testimony from the victims’ mother regarding the circumstances of her divorce. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In two separate criminal proceedings, one in Smith County and one in Wilson County, the Petitioner, John Allen Hessmer, was convicted of two felony offenses and two misdemeanors. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of twenty-four years’ incarceration. Approximately one year later, the Petitioner applied for a writ of habeas corpus in Wilson County, alleging that his Smith County convictions were void. He also asserted that he had not received proper credit for time served in pretrial detention. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the application, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over the convictions from a different county and that the application otherwise failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. The Petitioner appealed, arguing that the habeas corpus court improperly dismissed the application. Upon our review, we respectfully disagree with the Petitioner and affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

Kentucky lawyer Michael James Thompson received a public censure from the Tennessee Supreme Court on July 9. The court found that while representing a client in a custody proceeding, Thompson exchanged sexualized communications with the client, which created a conflict of interest. The court also determined that Thompson communicated with the client about the custody proceeding through Instagram messaging, which did not include any privacy controls. It imposed the censure in Tennessee for violations of Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6 (protecting confidential information) and 1.7(a)(2) (concurrent conflict of interest).

In this declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of a state statute, the trial court allowed the Tennessee Attorney General to intervene on behalf of the State of Tennessee (“the State”). However, instead of allowing intervention for the limited purpose of defending the statute’s constitutionality, the trial court ordered that the State be made a party defendant in the action, thereby invoking the requirement of Tennessee Code Annotated § 20-18-101(a) that a three-judge panel be appointed. The plaintiffs timely appealed. Determining that the trial court erred in its interpretation of Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 24, we vacate the trial court’s order directing the State’s intervention as a party defendant. We remand this matter to the trial court to determine whether the State is a necessary party or whether the State should be allowed to intervene for the limited purpose of defending the constitutionality of Tennessee Code Annotated § 38-8-312.

On remand from this Court, Appellant filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs in the trial court. As the basis for her motion, Appellant relied on Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-12-119 (contemplating an award of attorney’s fees to a party on grant of his or her Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12 motion to dismiss), and on this Court’s mandate from the first appeal, wherein we remanded the case to the trial court for, inter alia, “collection of costs.” The trial court denied the motion, and Appellant appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Wayne County lawyer Joshua Howard Polk received a public censure from the Tennessee Supreme Court on July 9. After agreeing to represent clients in a water rights case, a third party joined the litigation. Polk determined that a conflict of interest was created by the new party, which mandated his withdrawal. While the court said it was reasonable for Polk to help his clients identify subsequent counsel, it found that he waited 14 months to withdraw. This resulted in unnecessary delay in the litigation, halting progress on the case and postponing a hearing on the opposing party’s motion for summary judgment. The court determined that his actions violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.7(a)(2), 1.16(a). 3.2 and 8.4(d).

The American Bar Association (ABA) Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility released a formal opinion today that provides guidance to lawyers exercising peremptory challenges in the jury selection process. According to a release, the opinion states that a lawyer who knows or reasonably should know that their use of peremptory challenges constitutes unlawful discrimination violates ABA Model Rule 8.4(g). The opinion also clarifies that such conduct cannot be considered “legitimate advocacy,” even if advised by a client, jury consultant or AI software. And it outlines a lawyer’s duty to investigate the motives behind seemingly discriminatory challenges. Finally, it reinforces the principle that ethics rules prohibit actions deemed unlawful by courts or legislatures.

Six weeks after being found guilty on 17 of 19 charges — including theft, money laundering, bribery and kickbacks — former Tennessee House Speaker Glenn Casada formally requested a new trial. His co-defendant and former chief of staff Cade Cothren has indicated he intends to do the same. The Tennessean reports that one reason Casada's attorneys say he is entitled to a new trial is that incriminating portions of the former lawmaker's FBI interview were played in court despite the government agreeing to redact them. In the motion for a new trial, attorneys wrote, “The bell could not be unrung — the jury heard the redacted statements, and there is no meaningful way to undo that error." U.S. District Court Judge Eli Richardson rejected a motion for mistrial after the interview was played in court. Casada and Cothren are scheduled to be sentenced Sept. 12, but that may be delayed given these new filings.

The Tennessee Department of Commerce & Insurance’s (TDCI) Securities Division recently amended its current rules to allow certain investment advisers, private fund advisers and venture capital firms whose only clients are private funds and who meet the new rule’s definition to be exempt from registration and custody requirements. However, these firms will be required to notice file and annually renew the filing with the division. The division says there has been confusion as to who should be utilizing the new exemption with some relying on the de minimis exemption and believing custody requirements do not apply. To clarify, the division says that the de minimis exemption never exempted an investment adviser from the requirement to comply with custody rules. However, those who meet the requirements of the newly created private fund exemption, found at Tennessee Securities Rule 0780-04-03-.05 (1)(c), are not subject to the custody requirements. To help investors, the division has prepared an FAQ to provide greater clarification.

AutoZone, Bass, Berry & Sims, and Memphis Area Legal Services will team up to offer free legal services to Memphis-area seniors at the 15th annual “Give a Little, Help a Lot” pro bono legal aid clinic on July 16 at the Orange Mound Senior Center. The event, which has helped hundreds of seniors since it began in 2009, will provide low-income seniors with assistance in preparing advance care plans, health care directives, durable power of attorney forms, wills and other important legal documents. Attorneys, paralegals and volunteers will work one-on-one with seniors from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. CDT. For more information contact Mikey Mooney of Poston Communications at mooney@postoncommunications.com or at 404-875-3400.