Opinion ID: 1215322
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: March hearing

Text: In March 1984, a hearing was held before the judge who eventually presided over the penalty phase retrial. The prosecutor and defendant were present, but Hanson was not. After discussing the status of the case, the prosecutor raised an issue so that Mr. Easley [could] start thinking about it at this time, namely, the possible conflict Hanson had with respect to the matter. The prosecutor acquainted the judge with the background of the intervening federal criminal case, the fact that Hanson represented Plankington and probably still does, and the fact that Hanson had elicited defendant's confession regarding his involvement with the arson. [9] The prosecutor noted that because of the last fact, Hanson would face a serious ethical and legal conflict if defendant were to testify and deny committing the arson. The court and prosecutor told defendant that in the absence of his counsel he was not being asked for a statement on the issue. Defendant nevertheless stated: What [the prosecutor] is saying is the same thing that he said before when Mr. Hanson was appointed to me. He didn't  he went over all of this, and he is saying this and that, and since Mr. Hanson isn't present, he's taking the opportunity  he's taking advantage of the opportunity to just say the same thing over. It's all been said.