Utah Supreme Court Hears Argument Over Use of Summary Judgment in Newton v. State Post‑Conviction Case

At an oral argument before the Utah Supreme Court, lawyers for the petitioner and for the state sparred over whether a petitioner may obtain post‑conviction relief on summary judgment and how courts should apply procedural bars and the Strickland ineffective‑assistance standard in collateral proceedings.

The dispute in Newton v. State focuses on two linked questions: when a state can obtain summary judgment dismissing post‑conviction claims and whether a petitioner may cross‑move for summary judgment on ineffective‑assistance claims using affidavits and expert reports. Defense counsel said the record here contains undisputed facts showing counsel’s failures and prejudice; state lawyers said the post‑conviction context and extensive trial evidence require deference to the jury verdict and an evidentiary hearing in most cases.

Counsel for the petitioner, Taliferro, representing appellant Bridal Newton, told the court that “this case is not complicated” and argued trial and appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance that deprived Newton of a fair trial. Taliferro summarized the defense theory that a new defense expert, Jean Lee Carver, reviewed the SANE (sexual assault nurse examiner) records and photographs and would have rebutted key trial testimony: Carver concluded the SANE overstated and mischaracterized injuries, misapplied dye testing and…