Barbara Ann Roberts v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/04/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 CR-11-1855 Barbara Ann Roberts v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from Cherokee C i r c u i t Court (CC-06-461.60) JOINER, Judge. B a r b a r a Ann R o b e r t s was c o n v i c t e d o f c a p i t a l m u r d e r , s e e § 13A-5-40(a)(2), and f i r s t - d e g r e e robbery, s e e § 13A-8-41, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , a n d was s e n t e n c e d t o l i f e i m p r i s o n m e n t the possibility conviction (Ala. of parole. and sentence. Crim. App. 2 0 1 0 ) . This Roberts On Court affirmed v. S t a t e , January without Roberts's 62 So. 3d 1071 24, 2 0 1 1 , R o b e r t s CR-11-1855 "requested appointment of counsel to handle Crim. P.,] petition," o t h e r t h a n Ms. (C. 2.) and also "requested and [Roberts's] t h a t an attorney C o c h r a n - M o r g a n be a p p o i n t e d " t o r e p r e s e n t h e r . Cochran-Morgan had proceedings a R u l e 32 [ A l a . R. on request represented Roberts direct on appeal. this in posttrial "Notwithstanding regard," the circuit court a p p o i n t e d Cochran-Morgan " t o r e p r e s e n t [ R o b e r t s ] w i t h r e s p e c t to the f i l i n g In other of a Rule 32 p e t i t i o n . " Roberts's petition, things--that "[i]n posttrial and argue issue an 2.) Cochran-Morgan representing appellate levels, that (C. could alleged--among [Roberts] [Cochran-Morgan] f a i l e d have led to the [ R o b e r t s ' s ] c o n v i c t i o n s i n t h [ e ] c a s e . " (C. 17.) Roberts's petition, Roberts [Cochran-Morgan's] d e f i c i e n t "was greatly ... omission by prejudiced p e r f o r m a n c e " and, [Cochran-Morgan], reversal the to of According to the p e t i t i o n , " t h e r e i s a reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y the at the according by to t h a t , but f o r outcome of [ R o b e r t s ' s ] a p p e a l of h e r c o n v i c t i o n s i n t h i s case would have been v e r y different." pleaded--through ineffective (C. 33.) More Cochran-Morgan--that for failing specifically, Cochran-Morgan t o a r g u e on a p p e a l 2 Roberts t h a t the was "[trial] CR-11-1855 court failed necessary to p r o p e r l y for a c a p i t a l murder instruct conviction using accomplice intent liability in a case." In a subsequent h e a r i n g Morgan the j u r y about the continued Cochran-Morgan to on R o b e r t s ' s represent explained petition, Roberts. her At position in the the Cochranhearing, Rule 32 proceedings: "MS. COCHRAN: Thank you, J u d g e . J u d g e , t h e f i r s t issue t h a t Ms. Roberts r a i s e s i n her Rule 32 p e t i t i o n i s t h a t the C o n s t i t u t i o n of the United S t a t e s or of the S t a t e of Alabama r e q u i r e s a new t r i a l , a new s e n t e n c e p r o c e e d i n g or other relief b a s e d on t h e d e n i a l o f e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l , and t h e r e i s a b i t o f a t w i s t t o t h i s a r g u m e n t , Y o u r Honor. I'm not a l l e g i n g i n t h i s a r g u m e n t t h a t t r i a l c o u n s e l was ineffective, I'm raising that issue as to myself as appellate c o u n s e l , Y o u r Honor. As I'm s u r e t h e C o u r t r e c a l l s , Ms. R o b e r t s d i d r e q u e s t d i f f e r e n t c o u n s e l f o r t h e R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n and t h e C o u r t d e c i d e d t o go a h e a d and a p p o i n t me b e c a u s e t h e r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e was j u s t so m a s s i v e t h a t i t w o u l d be a l o t f o r a n o t h e r a t t o r n e y t o g e t up t o s p e e d on. I d i d c o n s u l t w i t h Ms. R o b e r t s a b o u t t h a t and she a g r e e d t o l e t me c o n t i n u e on as h e r R u l e 32 a t t o r n e y . " (R. 3-4.) he The a t t o r n e y r e p r e s e n t i n g the thought the S t a t e conceded that s i t u a t i o n was and that Cochran-Morgan's representation [Cochran-Morgan] incapable under oath." (R. "irregular" of of Robertson offering 5.) 3 recognized any sworn "render[ed] testimony CR-11-1855 As the testimony State a t the h e a r i n g Roberts's petition, ineffectiveness. in support that anticipated, i n support including presented of the c l a i m s those no raised i n alleging her own C o c h r a n - M o r g a n d i d , t h o u g h , p r o v i d e argument of the p e t i t i o n ; the Cochran-Morgan i n response, the State a s s e r t e d ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim l a c k e d m e r i t and, i n s e v e r a l i n s t a n c e s , r e i t e r a t e d t h a t i t was Roberts's burden to prove c i r c u i t court subsequently the claim at the hearing. entered a w r i t t e n order concluding --among o t h e r t h i n g s - - t h a t t h e j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n t h a t was at trial was a p p r o p r i a t e and, t h u s , not been i n e f f e c t i v e . The given t h a t Cochran-Morgan R o b e r t s now a p p e a l s ; on a p p e a l , had Roberts i s a g a i n r e p r e s e n t e d b y C o c h r a n - M o r g a n who i s a g a i n a s s e r t i n g her i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s as reverse Roberts's and remand on t h e b a s i s represented by counsel who appellate that Roberts i s required counsel. should We n o t be to a s s e r t her own ineffectiveness. First, below--is however, we not recognize squarely envision a that this presented procedure by issue--although on appeal. which the We raised cannot, propriety of Cochran-Morgan's r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of R o b e r t s - - i n which Cochran- 4 CR-11-1855 Morgan i s a s s e r t i n g h e r and addressed; Roberts while represented P., nor could postconviction by own cannot f i l e counsel, Roberts relief i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s - - c o u l d be a pro 2d 142 Rule 31(a), a file arguing (Ala. Crim. constitutional App. appellate see subsequent that a s s i s t a n c e of p o s t c o n v i c t i o n c o u n s e l . So. se 1984) r i g h t to counsel she raised A l a . R. brief Crim. petition for received i n e f f e c t i v e See D o n a l d v. S t a t e , ("[A] p e t i t i o n e r has i n a coram n o b i s 456 no proceeding. S i n c e t h i s i s t r u e , t h e n t h i s p e t i t i o n e r c o u l d n o t be deprived of counsel, effective assistance of counsel by anything his r e t a i n e d o r a p p o i n t e d , m i g h t have done a t t h i s h e a r i n g . " ) . l i g h t o f t h e u n i q u e n a t u r e o f t h i s c a s e , we this issue. In sua s p o n t e a d d r e s s 1 The d i s s e n t r e l i e s on S l a t o n v. S t a t e , 902 So. 2d 102, 108 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003), f o r the proposition that " a l l e g a t i o n s of a c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t are n o n j u r i s d i c t i o n a l and w a i v a b l e . " So. 3d a t . The s e c t i o n o f t h e S l a t o n o p i n i o n r e f e r e n c e d by t h e d i s s e n t , h o w e v e r , does n o t a d d r e s s c o n f l i c t of defense c o u n s e l , but i n s t e a d , addresses a c l a i m t h a t " t h e d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y had a c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t . " S l a t o n , 902 So. 2d a t 108 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . Moreover, l a t e r i n the S l a t o n o p i n i o n t h i s Court addressed the m e r i t s of a claim--without r e f e r e n c e t o p r e c l u s i o n a r y g r o u n d s - - t h a t the d e f e n d a n t ' s t r i a l c o u n s e l "had a c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t w h i l e r e p r e s e n t i n g him." S l a t o n , 902 So. 2d a t 115. Accordingly, S l a t o n does n o t s u p p o r t t h e d i s s e n t ' s p o s i t i o n . 1 S i m i l a r l y , t h e d i s s e n t ' s r e l i a n c e on S t a t e v. S t a n k o , 5 402 CR-11-1855 Second, although Alabama address the i s s u e b e f o r e questions own the ("'If trial counsel counsel cannot be is does not t h i s C o u r t i n t h i s c a s e , our p r o p r i e t y of i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s . See caselaw an attorney A.G. serving expected to caselaw a s s e r t i n g h i s or v. S t a t e , also squarely 989 as allege So. 2d 1167, appellate on appeal her 1172 counsel, his own S.C. 252, 270, 741 S.E. 2d 708, 717 ( 2 0 1 3 ) , i s m i s p l a c e d . The d i s s e n t c i t e s S t a n k o f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t an " a l l e g e d c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t c r e a t e d by t r i a l c o u n s e l r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e p e t i t i o n e r d u r i n g p o s t c o n v i c t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s was n o t p r e s e r v e d f o r a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w and t h u s n o t p r o p e r l y p r e s e r v e d b e f o r e t h e c o u r t . " ___ So. 3d a t ___ . The d i s s e n t ' s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of the f a c t s of Stanko are i n a c c u r a t e ; s p e c i f i c a l l y , the South C a r o l i n a Supreme C o u r t r e l a y e d t h e f o l l o w i n g r e l e v a n t f a c t s i n Stanko: " P r i o r to t h i s t r i a l , a j u r y found [Stanko] g u i l t y o f a s e p a r a t e m u r d e r and recommended a s e n t e n c e o f d e a t h . S t a t e v. S t a n k o , 376 S. C. 571, 573, 658 S. E. 2d 94, 95 (2008). W i l l i a m Diggs represented [ S t a n k o ] a t t h a t t r i a l , and [Stanko] r e q u e s t e d t h a t D i g g s r e p r e s e n t him i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , as w e l l . However, [Stanko] a l s o f i l e d a post-conviction relief (PCR) application c o l l a t e r a l l y a t t a c k i n g Diggs's p r i o r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n on the ground that he provided ineffective a s s i s t a n c e of counsel. A p p e l l a n t argues t h a t t h i s gave r i s e t o a c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t , and t h a t t h e trial court erred in accepting Appellant's 'inadequate' w a i v e r of t h i s c o n f l i c t . " 402 S.C. a t 265. Thus, t h e a t t o r n e y i n q u e s t i o n i n t h e S t a n k o c a s e was not the defendant's t r i a l c o u n s e l and a l s o h i s postconviction-proceeding c o u n s e l f o r t h e same c a s e . 6 CR-11-1855 ineffectiveness.'" 1300 ( q u o t i n g N e l s o n v. S t a t e , 649 ( A l a . C r i m . App. Professional represent Conduct Likewise, dictate that 2d 1299, the Alabama R u l e s "[a] lawyer shall limited Ala. R. by ... Prof. the lawyer's Cond. While own interest." i t may be of not a c l i e n t i f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h a t c l i e n t may materially 1.7(b), 1994)). So. be Rule true that Cochran-Morgan t o l d the c i r c u i t c o u r t t h a t R o b e r t s "agreed to let [Cochran-Morgan] attorney," we do n o t continue on as [Roberts's] equate Roberts's "agreeing" Rule to Cochran- Morgan's r e p r e s e n t a t i o n w i t h a k n o w i n g w a i v e r o f t h e conflict; waiver, the we the note t h a t , to the her or, R u l e 1.7, own knowing t h a t request unrepresented. conflict that there c o u l d be can for a the different Nevertheless, be A l a . R. cured by c i r c u i t court we waiver. P r o f . Cond. attorney, question See had detached a or impossible already risk whether a g e n e r a l l y Comments to ("If t h e p r o b i t y o f a for the advice."). 7 being such conduct i n a t r a n s a c t i o n i s i n s e r i o u s question, difficult obvious c o n f l i c t p l a c e d R o b e r t s i n the p o s i t i o n to waive conflict denied extent 32 lawyer to give lawyer's i t may a be client CR-11-1855 Even if this appropriately Court act State asserted at conflict, i n which the lawyer i s l i k e l y R u l e 3 . 7 ( a ) . A l a . R. the evidentiary the Roberts P r o f e s s i o n a l Conduct a l s o s t a t e t h a t " [ a ] lawyer s h a l l not necessary witness." inherent that of advocate at a t r i a l the satisfied Rules as waived were Prof. hearing, Cond. i t was t o be As ineffective-assistance-of-counsel Cochran-Morgan, simultaneously alleging her presenting own ineffectiveness, precluded and claim; Roberts herself t e s t i m o n i a l e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t o f one primary postconviction Third, representing the Roberts's burden to prove her by a and from of R o b e r t s ' s claims. finally, although there is no caselaw in A l a b a m a on t h i s i s s u e , o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s have f a c e d s i m i l a r dilemmas; notably, a s i m i l a r case arose in Colorado. 2 In O t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s have q u e s t i o n e d t h e p r o p r i e t y o f c o u n s e l a s s e r t i n g h i s o r h e r own i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s . See S u l l i v a n v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 721 A.2d 936, 937 (D.C. C i r . 1998) ("'It w o u l d be a c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t f o r a l a w y e r t o a p p e a l a r u l i n g p r e m i s e d on t h e l a w y e r ' s own i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s . ' " ( q u o t i n g Ramsey v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 569 A.2d 142, 146 (D.C. C i r . 1 9 9 0 ) ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v. D e l Muro, 87 F.3d 1078, 1080 ( 9 t h . C i r . 1996) ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t " t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c r e a t e d an i n h e r e n t c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t by f o r c i n g t r i a l c o u n s e l t o p r o v e h i s own i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s " ) ; G a r l a n d v. S t a t e , 283 Ga. 201, 203, 657 S.E.2d 842, 844 (2008) ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t " a p p e l l a n t ' s trial c o u n s e l c o u l d n o t r e a s o n a b l y be e x p e c t e d t o a s s e r t o r a r g u e h i s own i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s on a p p e a l , " as w e l l as t h e p r i n c i p l e 2 8 CR-11-1855 Murphy v. had State, been Office 863 represented of the P.2d at 301, 302 trial Public by trial effective assistance court counsel the to appoint n o t be trial represent court, Murphy postconviction however, and motion. of counsel an a t t o r n e y a 1 9 9 3 ) , Murphy--who staff attorney Defender--filed p o s t c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f " i n w h i c h he denied (Colo. "asserted counsel." but a from "motion for t h a t he had been Murphy a s k e d requested that a subsequently Id. at 303. On public appeal, office; defender denied the the appointed from the p u b l i c d e f e n d e r ' s appointed the to Murphy's Colorado i n t h a t s t a t e t h a t "a l a w y e r may n o t e t h i c a l l y p r e s e n t a c l a i m t h a t he/she p r o v i d e d a c l i e n t w i t h i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l " ) ; S t a t e v. Toney, 39 Kan. App. 2d 1036, 1042, 187 P.3d 138, 142 (2008) ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t " t h e p u b l i c d e f e n d e r w o u l d be o b l i g a t e d t o a d v o c a t e and p r o v e h e r own p r o f e s s i o n a l i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s . On t h e o t h e r hand, i n o r d e r t o d e f e n d h e r s e l f a g a i n s t Toney's a l l e g a t i o n s o f i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s , t h e p u b l i c d e f e n d e r w o u l d be r e q u i r e d t o a d v o c a t e a g a i n s t h e r c l i e n t ' s l e g a l p o s i t i o n . This o b v i o u s l y p l a c e d the p u b l i c defender i n a t e n u o u s p o s i t i o n . " ) ; S t a t e v. M o l i n a , 271 Neb. 488, 535, 713 N.W.2d 412, 451 (2006) (recognizing that appointing new c o u n s e l was a p p r o p r i a t e b e c a u s e " M o l i n a ' s d e s i r e t o a r g u e t h a t trial counsel was i n e f f e c t i v e gave r i s e t o a p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t , because i t p l a c e d t r i a l c o u n s e l i n the p o s i t i o n o f h a v i n g t o a r g u e h i s own i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s " ) ; P e o p l e v. K e e n e r , 275 I l l . App. 3d 1, 4, 655 N.E.2d 294, 297 (1995) ("A p e r se c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t a r i s e s when a t t o r n e y s a r g u e m o t i o n s i n w h i c h t h e y a l l e g e t h e i r own i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s . " ) ; Commonwealth v. Fox, 476 Pa. 475, 478, 383 A.2d 199, 200-01 (1978) ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t " i t i s u n r e a l i s t i c t o e x p e c t t r i a l c o u n s e l t o a r g u e h i s own i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s " ) . 9 CR-11-1855 Court of Appeals conflicted concluded c o u n s e l was that concluded issue of moot " b e c a u s e Murphy had the appointment of c o u n s e l . " I d . however, the that, The Colorado irrespective no Murphy's right to Supreme C o u r t , o f w h e t h e r Murphy was e n t i t l e d to counsel r e l a t e d to h i s p o s t c o n v i c t i o n motion, " i t c a n n o t be d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , by i t s own a c t i o n , o r d e r e d t h e a p p o i n t m e n t o f t h e same attorney that had represented Murphy in the p r o c e e d i n g s b e l o w . By m a k i n g s u c h an appointment, the district court created a situation where a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l was f o r c e d to l i t i g a t e against h i m s e l f , c l e a r l y c a u s i n g an i m p e r m i s s i b l e c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t . Thus, due t o t h e i n h e r e n t c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t as w e l l as t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f i m p r o p r i e t y , we h o l d t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n a p p o i n t i n g t h e p u b l i c d e f e n d e r who r e p r e s e n t e d Murphy i n t h e t r i a l b e l o w t o a s s i s t i n t h e l i t i g a t i o n o f Murphy's postconviction proceedings." Murphy, 863 P.2d We f i n d Murphy Although a t 304-05 ( c i t a t i o n s and q u o t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . instructive. Roberts was not h e r R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n , R o b e r t s entitled to counsel r e q u e s t e d c o u n s e l and to pursue requested t h a t she be r e p r e s e n t e d by someone o t h e r t h a n C o c h r a n - M o r g a n ; t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t , h o w e v e r , d e n i e d t h a t r e q u e s t and, trial c o u r t i n Murphy, a p p o i n t e d represented Roberts. The circuit case, court i n this c o u n s e l who r e c o r d does n o t like 10 the t r i a l like the had p r e v i o u s l y indicate that the c o u r t i n Murphy, CR-11-1855 was aware t h a t R o b e r t s w o u l d a s s e r t i n e f f e c t i v e appellate that counsel; Roberts--who sentenced was to l i f e parole--would i t i s not d i f f i c u l t to foresee, convicted of c a p i t a l imprisonment assert various without assistance of murder though, a n d was the p o s s i b i l i t y of allegations of ineffective a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l r e l a t e d t o h e r c o n v i c t i o n and a p p e a l . 3 A c c o r d i n g l y , b a s e d on t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e , we r e v e r s e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s o r d e r a p p o i n t i n g C o c h r a n - M o r g a n as c o u n s e l f o r R o b e r t s i n t h e R u l e 32 p r o c e e d i n g s a n d r e v e r s e t h e c i r c u i t court's order denying Roberts's this circuit matter to the R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . court f o r i t to We remand reconsider R o b e r t s ' s r e q u e s t f o r c o u n s e l c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s o r d e r and, further, t o p e r m i t R o b e r t s - - o r h e r c o u n s e l , d e p e n d i n g on t h e d e c i s i o n of the c i r c u i t c o u r t - - t o amend h e r p e t i t i o n . REVERSED AND REMANDED. Welch and Burke, with writing, which J J . , concur; Kellum, Windom, P . J . , d i s s e n t s , J., joins. A l t h o u g h we c o n c l u d e t h a t C o c h r a n - M o r g a n s h o u l d n o t have b e e n a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t R o b e r t s , we do n o t i n t e n d t o suggest t h a t Roberts i s e n t i t l e d t o appointed counsel i n postconviction proceedings o r t h a t she i s e n t i t l e d to appointed counsel of her choice. 3 11 CR-11-1855 WINDOM, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . The i s s u e upon w h i c h the m a j o r i t y reverses the circuit c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f B a r b a r a Ann R o b e r t s ' s R u l e 32, A l a . R. C r i m . P., p e t i t i o n -- t h a t c o u n s e l who r e p r e s e n t e d appeal and d u r i n g the Rule c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t r a i s e d on a p p e a l . are 32 p r o c e e d i n g s v. S t a t e , from 511, 514, 100 P.3d 902 So. 2d 102, 108 M o r a l e s v. B r i d g f o r t h , 668, 671 t h i s issue i s not p r o p e r l y before (2004). Accordingly, t h i s Court f o r review. S t a t e v. S t a n k o , 402 S.C. 252, 270, 741 S.E.2d 708, 717 (holding that a claim from a c o n f l i c t Because t h i s this Court, that postconviction o f i n t e r e s t was W a l l a c e v. S t a t e , a (allegations of a c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t n o n j u r i s d i c t i o n a l and w a i v a b l e ) ; 136 N.M. suffered i s n o t j u r i s d i c t i o n a l and h a s n o t b e e n Cf^ Slaton ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2003) R o b e r t s on d i r e c t not preserved 935 P.2d 366, 370 n o n j u r i s d i c t i o n a l issue I do n o t b e l i e v e that Kellum, J . , concurs. 12 (2013) suffered f o r review); ( O k l . C r i m . App. 1997). i s not properly before i t provides for r e v e r s i n g the d e c i s i o n of the c i r c u i t I respectfully dissent. counsel Cf. a valid court. basis Therefore,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.