Opinion ID: 781300
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Conflict of interest arising from an alleged investigation into Attorney Murphy's conduct

Text: 142 Kohn asserts a separate conflict of interest claim arising from the alleged government investigation into Attorney Murphy's role in soliciting Jaeger to bribe a potential witness. Kohn specifically asserts that the district court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing to explore his claims that Attorney Murphy labored under an actual conflict of interest as a result of this investigation. 143 A district court should grant a hearing on a habeas petition unless the motion and files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner in entitled to no relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This court reviews the district court's decision to deny a hearing for an abuse of discretion. Green v. United States, 65 F.3d 546, 548 (6th Cir.1995). 144 In support of his claim of a separate conflict of interest, Kohn places particular emphasis on AUSA Janice's statements to the trial court: 145 Let me say this is also the first case I have ever had where so many witnesses have come forward and indicated what I would consider improprieties. We need go no further than starting out with Mr. David Jaeger himself, that is already on the record, that he was solicited to come over to Mr. Murphy's office by Mr. Murphy, the two Defendants [Moss and Kohn] were waiting there, and he was solicited there to bribe another witness. I have information from other witnesses also indicating that they have been pressured by various other people, either not to testify or to testify falsely in this case, your honor.