In Finch v. Payne, No. 19-2369 (8th Cir. Dec. 18, 2020), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the petitioner was entitled to release or a new trial because the Arkansas Supreme Court had articulated the correct legal framework for evaluating petitioner’s Sixth Amendment argument—but had applied that framework to the facts in an objectively unreasonable manner.
The case arose from the criminal convictions of Elliot Harold Finch Jr. In August 2013, Finch broke into his ex-girlfriend’s home and held her at gunpoint. The ex-girlfriend’s two children were also in the residence at the time. Finch threatened to kill the children, the ex-girlfriend, and himself. In an attempt to defuse the situation, the ex-girlfriend eventually had sex with Finch. After Finch allowed her to leave the next morning, she called the police, resulting in Finch’s arrest and prosecution by the State of Arkansas.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
