State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Motta , 298 Neb. 754 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
    www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
    01/19/2018 08:12 AM CST
    - 754 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    298 Nebraska R eports
    STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. MOTTA
    Cite as 
    298 Neb. 754
    State     of    Nebraska ex rel. Counsel for Discipline
    of the       Nebraska Supreme Court, relator,
    v. A lison H. Motta, respondent.
    ___ N.W.2d ___
    Filed January 19, 2018.   No. S-17-602.
    Original action. Judgment of public reprimand.
    Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, K elch, and
    Funke, JJ.
    Per Curiam.
    INTRODUCTION
    This case is before the court on the conditional admission
    filed by Alison H. Motta, respondent, on November 16, 2017.
    The court accepts respondent’s conditional admission to the
    charge contained in the amended formal charges and enters an
    order of public reprimand.
    FACTS
    On July 19, 2013, respondent was admitted to the practice
    of law in the State of Nebraska pro hac vice by order of the
    county court for Douglas County, Nebraska. Her admission
    was for appearing in the case of “State v. Anthony Garcia”
    (Garcia case), docketed in Douglas County Court as case No.
    CR13-17383 and in the district court for Douglas County as
    case No. CR13-2322. Anthony Garcia had been charged with
    committing four homicides. Respondent is also admitted to
    the practice of law in the State of Illinois. With respect to the
    Garcia case, at all relevant times, she was engaged in the prac-
    tice of law in Omaha, Nebraska.
    - 755 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    298 Nebraska R eports
    STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. MOTTA
    Cite as 
    298 Neb. 754
    With respect to discipline, pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. § 3-302,
    respondent is under the jurisdiction of the “District Two
    Committee on Inquiry.” The matters alleged in the amended
    formal charges were reviewed by said committee pursuant to
    Neb. Ct. R. § 3-309(H) (rev. 2011). The committee determined
    that there were reasonable grounds for discipline of respondent
    and that a public interest would be served by the filing of for-
    mal charges.
    On November 16, 2017, the Counsel for Discipline of the
    Nebraska Supreme Court filed amended formal charges against
    respondent. The amended formal charges consist of one count
    against respondent arising from her extrajudicial statements to
    the media regarding the Garcia case.
    The amended formal charges state that during the Garcia
    case, on June 26, 2015, the trial court issued a protec-
    tive order under seal regarding an unrelated 2007 homi-
    cide known as the Blanchard homicide. The protective order
    stated, “‘[N]o information or knowledge obtained [by the
    State or Garcia] from the review [of the Blanchard homicide
    evidence] may be used, disclosed, or referenced during prepa-
    ration for trial, during trial, or for any other matter in this
    [Garcia] prosecution.’”
    Shortly before trial of the Garcia case was scheduled to
    commence on April 4, 2016, a suspect was arrested in the
    Blanchard homicide. After the arrest of the suspect in the
    Blanchard homicide and prior to the Garcia trial, respondent
    made numerous statements to news media related to the sus-
    pect in the Blanchard homicide indicating that it was the belief
    of Garcia’s defense team that such suspect was involved in two
    of the homicides for which Garcia stood charged. Omaha tele-
    vision news station WOWT quoted respondent as saying, “‘By
    cross-comparing the DNA evidence that they discovered at the
    . . . Blanchard scene, DNA [of the suspect in the Blanchard
    homicide] was at both scenes. I don’t see how they’re going
    to explain the cross-over in the DNA and the existence of
    both people at both crime scenes.’” Omaha television news
    - 756 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    298 Nebraska R eports
    STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. MOTTA
    Cite as 
    298 Neb. 754
    station KMTV quoted respondent as saying, “‘This evidence
    conclusively exonerates . . . Garcia and shows that it can-
    not be a coincidence the two manners of killing being sig-
    nature like and the crossover between the two scenes of the
    same two suspects.’” Respondent also made statements to the
    Omaha World-Herald newspaper that the defense team hoped
    that “‘we’ll get a call from the County Attorney’s office that
    they’re dismissing those charges.’”
    Following respondent’s statements to the media, on March
    30, 2016, the State moved for sanctions against her. On March
    31, respondent and her out-of-state cocounsel jointly renewed
    their motion for admission pro hac vice due to the withdrawal
    of prior local Nebraska counsel. Following an April 4 hear-
    ing, the trial court issued an order nunc pro tunc finding
    that respondent violated the protective order regarding the
    Blanchard homicide with her public dissemination of the DNA
    results in the Blanchard homicide. The trial court further found
    that respondent’s statements to news media violated Neb.
    Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. § 3-503.6. The trial court disqualified
    respondent from continued admission to practice and partici-
    pate in the Garcia case pro hac vice.
    The amended formal charges allege that by her actions,
    respondent violated her oath of office as an attorney licensed to
    practice law pro hac vice in the State of Nebraska, as provided
    by 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 7-104
     (Reissue 2012), as well as § 3-503.6
    (trial publicity) and Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. § 3-508.4(a)
    and (d) (misconduct).
    On November 16, 2017, respondent filed a conditional
    admission pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. § 3-313(B) of the discipli­
    nary rules, in which she conditionally admitted that she vio-
    lated the oath of office of her pro hac vice admission as
    an attorney and professional conduct rules §§ 3-503.6 and
    3-508.4(a) and (d). In the conditional admission, respondent
    states she did not knowingly or intentionally violate these rules
    of professional conduct, but acknowledges and admits that her
    conduct violated the identified rules of professional conduct.
    - 757 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    298 Nebraska R eports
    STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. MOTTA
    Cite as 
    298 Neb. 754
    Respondent knowingly does not challenge or contest the truth
    of the matters conditionally admitted and waived all proceed-
    ings against her in exchange for a public reprimand.
    The proposed conditional admission included a declaration
    by the Counsel for Discipline stating that respondent’s pro-
    posed discipline is appropriate and consistent with sanctions
    imposed in other disciplinary cases with similar acts of mis-
    conduct and will protect the public.
    ANALYSIS
    Section 3-313, which is a component of our rules governing
    procedures regarding attorney discipline, provides in perti-
    nent part:
    (B) At any time after the Clerk has entered a Formal
    Charge against a Respondent on the docket of the Court,
    the Respondent may file with the Clerk a conditional
    admission of the Formal Charge in exchange for a stated
    form of consent judgment of discipline as to all or
    part of the Formal Charge pending against him or her
    as determined to be appropriate by the Counsel for
    Discipline or any member appointed to prosecute on
    behalf of the Counsel for Discipline; such conditional
    admission is subject to approval by the Court. The con-
    ditional admission shall include a written statement that
    the Respondent knowingly admits or knowingly does
    not challenge or contest the truth of the matter or mat-
    ters conditionally admitted and waives all proceedings
    against him or her in connection therewith. If a tendered
    conditional admission is not finally approved as above
    provided, it may not be used as evidence against the
    Respondent in any way.
    Pursuant to § 3-313, and given the conditional admission,
    we find that respondent knowingly does not challenge or
    contest the matters conditionally admitted. We further deter-
    mine that by her conduct, respondent violated conduct rules
    §§ 3-503.6 and 3-508.4(a) and (d) and the oath of office of
    - 758 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    298 Nebraska R eports
    STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. MOTTA
    Cite as 
    298 Neb. 754
    her pro hac vice admission as an attorney in the State of
    Nebraska. Respondent has waived all additional proceedings
    against her in connection herewith. Upon due consideration,
    the court approves the conditional admission and enters the
    orders as indicated below.
    CONCLUSION
    Respondent is publicly reprimanded. If respondent applies
    to appear pro hac vice in a case pending in the state courts
    of the State of Nebraska, she must disclose this discipline in
    any such application. Respondent is directed to pay costs and
    expenses in accordance with Neb. Ct. R. §§ 3-310(P) (rev.
    2014) and 3-323 of the disciplinary rules within 60 days after
    an order imposing costs and expenses, if any, is entered by
    the court.
    Judgment of public reprimand.
    Wright, J., not participating.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: S-17-602

Citation Numbers: 298 Neb. 754

Filed Date: 1/19/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/30/2018