The Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) on behalf of the Tennessee Supreme Court has proposed the development of a new structure for handling civil appointments for indigents as well as criminal conflicts. Under the plan, the Tennessee Supreme Court would establish the “Indigent Representation Commission.” This commission would provide oversight and management for the indigent representation system, including the proposed "Office of Indigent Conflicts and Civil Counsel." The commission would be governed by Tennessee Supreme Court Rule, like existing supreme court boards and commissions, and would manage indigent representation tasks presently handled largely by the courts. The commission also would work closely with other stakeholders to review and implement policies to improve the system. Learn more about the plan and indigent representation in Tennessee. Watch for more details about the plan in upcoming issues of TBA Today.

The TBA Access to Justice Committee is accepting nominations for the 2025 Public Service Awards. The annual awards recognize outstanding commitment to access to justice in three categories: work performed by an attorney employed by an organization primarily involved in providing legal representation to the indigent, pro bono work performed by a private or corporate attorney, and a strong commitment to pro bono service by a Tennessee law student or recent graduate. Nominations are due by March 31. Awards will be presented during the TBA Annual Convention in June.

The Legal Aid Society of Middle Tennessee and the Cumberlands (LAS) is seeking feedback to assess and strengthen its Volunteer Lawyers Program (VLP), with the goal of ensuring that there are meaningful and well-supported pro bono opportunities for the private bar. As part of this effort, LAS has created a survey to hear directly from attorneys about their experiences, motivations and challenges to engaging in pro bono and will utilize the results to help identify the most impactful pro bono opportunities for both attorneys and clients. The survey, which takes about 15 minutes, is open until March 14.

The Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) on behalf of the Tennessee Supreme Court has proposed the development of a new structure for handling civil appointments for indigents and to handle criminal conflicts. Under the plan, the Tennessee Supreme Court would establish an “Office of Indigent Conflicts and Civil Counsel,” with oversight by an “Indigent Representation Commission.” The office would manage an estimated 76,000 cases each year, employing one statewide executive director and three attorneys — one in each grand division — as well as up to two full time or four part time attorneys who will all maintain their own caseloads. The office will implement strategic compensation structures using a combination of retainer, flat fee and hourly contracts, offering more competitive, predictable and intermittent compensation for attorneys who take appointed cases. The Supreme Court and the TBA believe that this new structure will better address the impending crisis in the administration of justice in Tennessee. Learn more about the plan and indigent representation in Tennessee and watch for our ongoing coverage of this issue. 

This week's TBA Legislative Updates podcast features TBA lobbyists Berkley Schwarz of Pier Strategies LLC and Brad Lampley and Ashley Harbin of Adams and Reese. This week, they discuss several key bills, including SB1052/HB1355, which amends Tenn. Code Ann. §36-1-102(45)(B) to clarify that a biological father who only provides token support does not qualify as a putative father; SB540/HB492, addressing custody determinations and failure to pay child support; SB541/HB906, related to the TBA probate study group’s legislation; SB394/HB569, regarding the selection of a settlement agent in real property transactions; and SB943/HB1255, which focuses on continuing education for judges handling child custody cases. The podcast also covers the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts' (AOC) plan for indigent representation on behalf of the Tennessee Supreme Court. Watch Director Michelle Long present the AOC’s budget request, including funding for a new Office of Indigent Conflicts and Civil Counsel, which would oversee the state’s indigent representation system. Her testimony begins at 1:31:04. Listeners can tune in to the podcast on the TBA website or directly through this link.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Misty Coleman alleges that she fell and broke her ankle after slipping on the wet shower floor of a county jail. This accident led Coleman to pursue constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and negligence claims under Ohio law against the county and many corrections officers and medical personnel. The district court dismissed all claims against all parties. Coleman’s appeal raises a mix of substantive and procedural questions. As for the substantive: Did Coleman adequately allege that the slippery shower violated the Due Process Clause? Did she adequately allege that a county policy or custom was behind her poor medical care? And may the county invoke state-law immunity from her negligence claim at the pleading stage? As for the procedural: When did Coleman’s claims accrue and start the running of the statute of limitations? Did her amended complaint (which named actual corrections officers and medical personnel) “relate back” to the date of her original complaint (which named “John Doe” and “Jane Doe” defendants) for statute-of-limitations purposes? And can Coleman rely on equitable tolling to delay the running of the limitations period? We agree with the district court on the answers to all six questions. We thus affirm its dismissal of Coleman’s complaint. In sum, Coleman identifies nothing in the relevant factual and legal sources—her complaint and Ohio law—that justifies her equitable-tolling request. She thus has not met her burden to show that she qualifies for this doctrine. See Saalim, 97 F.4th at 1012; Roach, 2022 WL 2211529, at *2. We affirm.

PER CURIAM. In 1995, a Kentucky jury convicted Garr Keith Hardin and Jeffrey Clark of murdering Rhonda Sue Warford. Robert Thurman, a forensic serologist, testified at their trial that a hair found at the crime scene was “similar” to a sample of Hardin’s hair. After Clark and Hardin spent over two decades in prison, DNA testing proved that this hair was not, in fact, Hardin’s. A state court thus vacated Hardin’s and Clark’s convictions. Clark and Hardin then brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against (among others) Thurman. In discovery, they obtained the “observation notes” that Thurman had written when examining the hairs. These notes suggested that the hair found at the scene might not have matched Hardin’s hair sample in various ways. Hardin claimed that Thurman’s failure to disclose the notes before trial violated his disclosure obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The district court denied Thurman’s qualified-immunity defense. On appeal, Thurman argues (1) that his notes were neither exculpatory nor material under Brady, and (2) that the law in the mid-1990s did not clearly establish that Brady’s duty of disclosure applied to scientists. Our precedent deprives us of jurisdiction over Thurman’s first argument. And it also dooms his second argument that Brady did not clearly apply to him. We thus affirm in part and dismiss in part for lack of jurisdiction.At day’s end, cases like Moldowan and Gregory bind us here. So I concur in the majority opinion. But I see room for debate over whether those decisions resolved these issues correctly.

The defendant, Davarious Montral Taylor, was convicted by a Tipton County Circuit Court jury of second-degree murder and sentenced to twenty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the sentence imposed by the trial court. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In 2023, the Defendant, Jeremy Allen Stephens, entered a guilty plea to two counts of aggravated child abuse. Subsequently, the Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea, which the trial court denied. At the subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of fifty years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that his motion to withdraw his guilty plea should have been granted and that the trial court erred when it imposed consecutive sentences. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Defendant, Sergei Aleksandrovich Novikov, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony, and aggravated assault, a Class C felony. The trial court merged the aggravated assault conviction into the attempted second degree murder conviction and sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and argues that the trial court erred in ordering a sentence of confinement without making proper findings that the Defendant was not entitled to alternative sentencing. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.