Opinion ID: 1944516
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: direct appeal and habeas

Text: Poindexter was represented at trial and on direct appeal by lawyers from the same public defender's office. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. [3] Poindexter did not challenge the unitary trial procedure, nor did he raise prosecutorial misconduct on direct appeal. Among the errors he did assign was the admission into evidence of the NCCF newsletter articles. We held that most of the newsletters, containing expressions of hatred for the Omaha police and advocating the use of violence against them, were properly admitted to show intent, malice, or motive. We concluded that the trial court erred in admitting three of the articles, but we concluded that their admission was not prejudicial. We reasoned that the properly admitted articles were far more virulent, [4] that there were relevant cautionary instructions, and that the other properly admitted evidence against Poindexter was relatively strong. After his direct appeal, Poindexter petitioned for a federal writ of habeas corpus, which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. [5] Among other things, Poindexter's habeas action asserted constitutional error stemming from the newsletter articles, the unitary trial procedure, and the allegedly coerced or perjured testimony of Peak. The U.S. District Court rejected the idea that the admission of any of the newsletter articles was so prejudicial as to amount to a denial of due process. It also rejected any claim that there was constitutional error stemming from jointly trying Poindexter and Rice. And the court concluded that there was no evidence of any physical mistreatment or unduly preferential treatment of Peak that would lead to the conclusion that his testimony was unconstitutionally coerced or otherwise inadmissible. [6] The court recognized that Peak was originally unwilling to testify against Poindexter and Rice in the preliminary hearing and that he came back after a break visibly nervous and finally willing to implicate Poindexter and Rice. The court also observed that the police had undoubtedly mentioned the possibility of the death penalty to Peak and that the police had generally treated Peak very well prior to trial. [7] But these facts did not show coercion. They were known to defense counsel and instead pertained to Peak's credibility. In 2006, Poindexter petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in state court, pertaining to matters not relevant to this appeal. The writ was denied. [8]