The Georgia Supreme Court ruled February 3 that a man serving life without parole for his daughter’s death cannot get a new appeal despite claims his lawyer had a conflict of interest.
What’s Happening: Alexandro Huitron argued his appellate attorney couldn’t properly represent him because the attorney worked for the same public defender’s office that represented Huitron’s wife at their joint trial. The Supreme Court rejected that argument and affirmed the denial of his habeas petition.
What’s Important: Huitron and his wife Margarita Gomez were convicted in the May 31, 2010 death of their three-year-old daughter Esmerelda Gomez. The child suffered a skull fracture, brain hemorrhaging, and retinal hemorrhaging at their Forest Park apartment. She died June 3, 2010 at Egleston Hospital.
The Crime: Four medical experts testified at the October-November 2012 trial that Esmerelda’s injuries couldn’t have resulted from falling off a bed, as the parents claimed. Doctors said the injuries matched severe trauma like a car accident or someone slamming her head on concrete. The child also had numerous bruises and two rib fractures that had begun healing, meaning they were at least seven to ten days old. Investigators found clumps of dark hair in the bathroom and outside near the concrete patio, and blood matching Esmerelda’s DNA in multiple rooms.
The Background: Witnesses testified that Gomez showed more affection to the couple’s other daughter and called Esmerelda the “product of a rape.” Gomez had sent Esmerelda to Mexico as an infant and shaved her head when she returned with lice. A caseworker testified Esmerelda appeared malnourished and frightened in November 2009.
The Conflict Claim: Huitron’s appellate attorney John Kraus worked for the Clayton County Public Defender’s Office, which had represented Gomez at trial. Huitron argued this prevented Kraus from blaming Gomez or calling her as a witness. At the habeas hearing, Gomez testified she dropped Esmerelda in a bathtub a week before the child’s death and said “it’s my fault.”
The Court’s Ruling: The Supreme Court found that even if a potential conflict existed, it didn’t significantly affect Kraus’s representation. The court noted Kraus raised eight ineffective assistance claims against Huitron’s trial counsel and questioned both defendants’ trial attorneys at the motion for new trial hearing. The habeas court found Kraus “aggressively pursued” claims despite the alleged conflict.
What Happens Next: Huitron remains sentenced to life without parole for felony murder plus consecutive sentences. The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous, with all justices concurring.
