Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court overruled Joseph J. Buttercase’s motion for rehearing but modified its prior opinion in Buttercase v. Davis. The supplemental opinion replaces specified paragraphs addressing actual innocence, guilty pleas, alleged ineffective assistance, and the evidentiary significance of an exhibit in Buttercase’s legal malpractice action. The remainder of the prior opinion remained unmodified.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should grant rehearing and modify its former opinion.
- Whether a criminal defendant who pleads guilty and later brings a legal malpractice claim may avoid demonstrating actual innocence merely by showing that counsel's errors caused the defendant to reject the plea and insist on going to trial.
- Whether Buttercase's arguments concerning actual innocence, the constitutional application of the federal obscenity statute, and Exhibit 14 warranted reversal of summary judgment.
Holdings
- The motion for rehearing was overruled, but the former opinion was modified by withdrawing and substituting the specified paragraphs.
- A criminal defendant bringing a subsequent legal malpractice claim is not relieved of demonstrating actual innocence merely by showing that, but for counsel's errors, the defendant would have rejected the plea and insisted on going to trial.
- Buttercase's arguments that he was actually innocent because the materials were not obscene under Miller v. California, and that the federal obscenity statute could not constitutionally be applied to his conduct, were unavailing; Exhibit 14 did not establish actual innocence, so his opposition to Davis's summary-judgment motion failed.
Key quotations
“But we are aware of no Nebraska authority holding that a criminal defendant raising a subsequent legal malpractice claim is relieved of demonstrating actual innocence if he or she can merely show that but for counsel’s errors, he or she would have rejected a plea and insisted on going to trial.” (588)
“Exhibit 14 does not purport to address Buttercase’s actual innocence of the obscenity charge, which is why we find his opposition to Davis’ motion for summary judgment failed.” (589)
Factual background
Buttercase brought a legal malpractice claim against Davis and the Davis Law Office based on Davis's representation in a criminal obscenity matter. Buttercase had pleaded guilty to producing and transporting obscene materials for distribution and later argued that he was actually innocent, that the materials were not obscene under Miller v. California, and that counsel's failure to investigate exculpatory evidence caused him to plead guilty. The court stated that the record contained no evidence establishing Buttercase's actual innocence.
Procedural history
The appeal came from the Lancaster County District Court, where Judge Darla S. Ideus presided. The Nebraska Supreme Court had previously issued an opinion affirming the relevant ruling, and Buttercase sought rehearing. The court overruled the motion for rehearing but modified its former opinion by withdrawing and substituting specified portions of its analysis.