Opinion ID: 2556812
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Shatney Memorandum

Text: On April 15, 2005, the Superior Court, at Laurence's request, appointed attorney Kevin Dwyer (Dwyer) as defendant's counsel, but for the limited purpose of filing a Shatney memorandum [5] to delve into the merits of Laurence's claims. Filed on or about July 11, 2006, Dwyer's Shatney memorandum distilled Laurence's postconviction-relief application into three claims of error: [1] Attorney O'Connor should have declined to represent a prosecution witness on the ground that Mr. O'Connor had been Defendant's attorney in the same matter[;] [2] The Department of Corrections and the Department of Attorney General `spied' on his trial preparations[; and] [3] The State should not have been allowed to use his private and confidential psychiatric records against him at the sentencing hearing. [6] Dwyer then gave his professional opinion about the merits of each claim: (1) the Supreme Court already decided and denied Laurence's appeal relative to O'Connor's effective assistance; (2) the spying allegations stated a claim for which relief could be granted and Laurence should be deposed on [his] claim [of spying]; (3) any statutory or due-process violation caused by the trial justice receiving Laurence's psychiatric records was harmless in light of other information presented at the sentencing hearing. Finally, Dwyer sought to withdraw as counsel. 2