State v. Galindo

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

State v. Galindo

Additional Case Names

(15)

Case Number
S-21-0419
Call Date
September 1, 2022
Case Time
9:00 AM
Court Number
Madison
Case Location
Lincoln
Court Type
District Court
Case Summary

S-21-0419 State of Nebraska (Appellee) v. Jorge A. Galindo (Appellant)

Appeal from the District Court for Madison County, Judge Robert R. Steinke

Attorneys: Adam J. Sipple (Domina Law for Appellant) and James D. Smith (Senior Assistant Attorney General for Appellee).

Criminal:  First Degree Murder, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, and capital punishment.

Proceedings below:  Appellant was convicted on five (5) counts of First Degree Murder for which he received five (5) death sentences, and the convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal.  Subsequently, Appellant filed a post-conviction relief claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.  Appellant’s claim was denied, and he appeals.  Capital punishment cases are an automatic and direct appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court. 

Issues:  On appeal, Appellant makes the following assignments of error:  1) The district court erred by failing to grant Appellant an evidentiary hearing; 2) The district erred by re-weighing aggravators and mitigators and denying Appellant’s claims based upon harmless error or lack of prejudice, in violation of Appellant’s right to due process guaranteed by Article One, Sections 3 and 11 of the Nebraska Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; 3)The district court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on Appellant’s claims the State failed to disclose material evidence, in violation of Article One, Sections 3 and 11 of the Nebraska Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution,  3(a) The district court erred by denying a hearing regarding Appellant’s allegations the prosecutor withheld evidence Hector Abendano trafficked methamphetamine with Miguel Lopez; 3(b) The district court erred by denying a hearing regarding Appellant’s allegations the prosecutor was involved with Abendano and Lopez in illicit activity; 3(c)The district court erred by denying a hearing regarding Appellant’s allegations the prosecutor failed to disclose Abendano’s status as an informant; 3(d) The district court erred by denying a hearing regarding Appellant’s allegations the prosecutor withheld evidence of inducements provided to Abendano; 3(e) The district court erred by denying a hearing regarding Appellant’s allegations the prosecutor withheld evidence of inducements provided to Courtney Barritt; 3(f) The district court erred by denying a hearing regarding Appellant’s allegations the prosecutor or state law-enforcement agents withheld material evidence regarding Kristi Petzold’s ties to a N.D. drug ring; 3(g) The district court erred by denying a hearing regarding Appellant’s allegations the prosecutor or state law-enforcement agents withheld evidence regarding the search and forensic testing of Wiest’s trunk for trace evidence of Lundell’s body; 4) The district court erred by dismissing Appellant’s post-conviction claims without conducting a hearing regarding the State’s alleged ongoing Brady violation, in violation of Article One, Section 3 and 11 of the Nebraska Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; 5) The district court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on Appellant’s claims the State violated his right to counsel by orchestrating the solicitation from Appellant of statements regarding the Lundell death while Appellant was jailed, in violation of Article One Section 11 of the Nebraska Constitution and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; 6) The district court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on Appellant’s claims the State knowingly introduced false testimony from Abendano, Animas and Barritt in violation of Article One, Section 3 and 11 of the Nebraska Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; 7) The district court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on Appellant’s claims the prosecutor was burdened by a conflict of interest in violation of Article One, Section 3 and 11 of the Nebraska Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; 8) The district court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on Appellant’s claim defense counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him regarding or to pursue a potentially lifesaving plea disposition in violation of Article One Section 11 of the Nebraska Constitution and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; 9) The district court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on Appellant’s claim defense counsel was ineffective for allowing him to waive his privilege against self-incrimination and provide information to investigators regarding the location of Travis Lundell’s body in violation of Article One Section 11 of the Nebraska Constitution and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; 10) The district court erred by denying an evidentiary claim on Appellant’s claim defense counsel was burdened by a conflict of interest in violation of Article One Sections 3 and 11 of the Nebraska Constitution and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; 11) The district court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on Appellant’s claim defense counsel provided ineffective assistance on appeal by failing to argue his rights were violated by the district court’s denial of his Motion to Continue in violation of Article One 5 Section 11 of the Nebraska Constitution and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; 12) The district court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on the following specific claims defense counsel provided ineffective assistance during trial of the Lundell allegation in violation of Article One Section 11 of the Nebraska Constitution and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; 12(a) Defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to subpoena a critical witness to impeach Daniel Animas; 12(b) Defense counsel provided effective assistance by failing to properly cross-examine Animas; 12(c) Defense counsel provided effective assistance by failing to properly cross-examine Abendano; 12(d) Defense counsel provided effective assistance by failing to properly cross-examine Lopez; 12(e) Defense counsel provided effective assistance by failing to properly cross-examine Barritt; 12(f) Defense counsel provided effective assistance by failing to properly cross-examine Petzold; 12(g) Defense counsel provided effective assistance by failing to properly cross-examine Wiest; 12(h)  Defense counsel failed to subject the Lundell allegation to meaningful adversarial testing; 13) The district court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on Appellant’s claim defense counsel provided ineffective assistance on appeal by failing to argue his trial objections regarding the (1)(d) aggravator, in violation of Article One Section 11 of the Nebraska Constitution and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; 14) The district court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on Appellant’s claim defense counsel provided ineffective assistance regarding the issue of Appellant’s youth during the sentencing mitigation hearing and on appeal in violation of Article One Section 11 of the Nebraska Constitution and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; 14(a) Defense counsel provided effective assistance by failing to assign on appeal the sentencing panel’s explicit refusal to consider youth; 14(b) Defense counsel provided effective assistance by failing to elicit appropriate expert opinions regarding or to argue Appellant’s youth as a mitigator; 15) The district court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on Appellant’s claim defense counsel provided ineffective assistance regarding the issue of remorse during the sentencing mitigation hearing in violation of Article One Section 11 of the Nebraska Constitution and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; 16) The district court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on Appellant’s claim defense counsel provided ineffective assistance regarding the issue of drug use during the sentencing mitigation hearing in violation of Article One Sections 3 and 11 of the Nebraska Constitution and the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; 17) The district court erred by denying relief for other alleged constitutional deprivations established by the record; 17(a) The Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits imposition of the death penalty for those 21 and under at the time of their offenses; 17(b)  Nebraska’s three judge sentencing scheme is outside evolving standards of decency and violates the Eighth Amendment; 17(c) The Sentencing Panel’s review of highly prejudicial and inadmissible victim impact statements constitutes structural error; and 17(d) The sentences of death are grossly disproportionate to Appellant’s offense in light of his age, cooperation, remorse and other circumstances.

Schedule Code
SC