Introduction
In my relentless pursuit of justice, it is imperative to highlight the misconduct and legal violations committed by my former attorney, Dwane Cates. This blog post will detail the specific laws and professional rules he broke during his representation of my case and trial. Understanding these violations is crucial, not just for my case, but for anyone seeking justice and fair representation.
State Bar of Arizona Professional Rules of Conduct Violations
- Rule 1.1 – Competence
- Dwane Cates failed to provide competent representation by not adequately preparing for my defense. His lack of preparation and understanding of the complexities of my case led to inadequate representation, violating Rule 1.1, which requires lawyers to provide competent representation to their clients.
- Rule 1.3 – Diligence
- Rule 1.3 mandates that a lawyer must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. Cates neglected important aspects of my case, including failing to investigate key evidence and witnesses that could have exonerated me, thus failing to meet this standard of diligence. He filed no motions in my case on my behalf whatsoever.
- Rule 1.4 – Communication
- Effective communication is critical in legal representation. Cates violated Rule 1.4 by failing to keep me informed about the status of my case and not explaining legal matters in a manner that allowed me to make informed decisions.
- Rule 1.7 – Conflict of Interest
- Rule 1.7 prohibits a lawyer from representing a client if there is a significant risk that the lawyer’s interests or other clients’ interests will materially limit their ability to represent the client. Cates had undisclosed conflicts of interest that compromised his ability to represent me impartially and effectively.
American Bar Association (ABA) Rules Violations
- Rule 3.1 – Meritorious Claims and Contentions
- The ABA Rule 3.1 requires that a lawyer should not bring or defend a proceeding unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous. Cates pursued defenses and arguments without a solid factual basis, wasting valuable resources and undermining my defense.
- Rule 8.4 – Misconduct
- This rule prohibits lawyers from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Cates’s actions, including misrepresenting facts and failing to disclose crucial information, clearly violate this rule.
Federal Laws and Constitutional Violations
- Sixth Amendment – Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel
- The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to effective assistance of counsel. Cates’s inadequate preparation, lack of communication, and conflicts of interest resulted in ineffective assistance, directly violating my constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment.
State Rules of Court Violations
- Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 15 – Disclosure and Discovery
- Rule 15 requires timely disclosure of evidence by both the prosecution and defense. Cates failed to utilize discovery rules effectively, neglecting to obtain exculpatory evidence that could have been crucial to my defense.
Attorney Dwane Cates evinces ineptitude, inadequacy, and incompetence, by a complete and total failure, and looked as if he did not even bother to investigate the State’s case and star witness, Jamil Trevon Curd (JTC), who was arrested 10 times before this case, with at least 25 Phoenix Police Department Incident reports of residential burglary, aggravated assaults, dui, domestic violence, criminal damage, disorderly conduct, 5 arrest warrants, and a pending investigation into the death of Royce Emmett Walker on May 21, 2015.
“5 arrest warrants, and a pending investigation into the death of Royce Emmett Walker on May 21, 2015 was concealed by Deputy County Attorney Lori Eidemanis of the Maricopa County Attorney Office (MCAO). Dwane Cates failed in his duties completely.”
Ewing redmond Samuels III
The State of Arizona’s case against me was largely constructed on Detective Marchele Miller‘s report, which was rife with omissions and deliberate falsehoods. Despite possessing facts that could have demonstrated my innocence, Miller chose to suppress this crucial information, thereby distorting the narrative and fabricating evidence to fit a predetermined conclusion of guilt. Her actions not only tainted the integrity of the investigation but also played a significant role in the wrongful conviction that followed, highlighting a grave miscarriage of justice. Marchele Miller was arrested on February 23, 2012 by the Chandler Police Department.
Attorney Dwane Cates did not obtain this information to challenge the veracity and truthfulness of her statements at trial and the report she authored, filled with deliberate falsehoods that was easy to refute with facts and evidence. He allowed the word of a corrupt Detective to violate an individual with high government security clearance as a Cyber Security Expert and Analyst.
“Detective Marchele Miller was arrested on February 23, 2012 by the Chandler Police Department.”
Ewing Redmond Samuels III
Federal Statutes and Case Law
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)
- This landmark case sets the standard for determining ineffective assistance of counsel. According to Strickland, a defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Cates’s actions meet both prongs of this test, as his incompetence and neglect clearly impacted the outcome of my case.
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
- Under Brady, the prosecution is required to disclose evidence favorable to the defendant. While this is a prosecutorial duty, Cates failed to demand such disclosures aggressively, a failure that compromised my defense.
Conclusion
Attorney Dwane Cates’s conduct during my case and trial was a clear breach of numerous professional and legal standards. His violations of the State Bar of Arizona Professional Rules of Conduct, American Bar Association Rules, Federal Laws, State Rules of Court, and critical case laws such as Strickland and Brady, resulted in the gross miscarriage of justice I experienced. It is my hope that by exposing these violations, I can not only seek redress for myself but also warn others of the potential pitfalls in their pursuit of justice.
Call to Action
I urge those who have faced similar injustices to come forward and share their stories. Together, we can push for accountability and reform within the legal system. For more detailed information and updates on my case, please visit my website regularly.
Until Next Time…
I Am,
Ewing Redmond Samuels III
