Wayne Ross Maitland v. United States

ISSUE Maitland was convicted for two counts of kidnapping under 18 U.S.C. §1201(a) et seq. The alleged victims were his wife and stepchild. The United States alleged that a domestic violence [Maitland not charged with domestic violence] sequence of events escalated into kidnaping. It is undisputed that Maitland's counsel, over Maitland's objection, stated in closing arguments that there was a "sequence of events... that obviously were domestic violence and then raised to some new level." The trial court denied Maitland's §2255 claim and denied COA. The Fifth Circuit denied COA, summarily, holding that reasonable jurists could not disagree with the trial court's ruling. The issue is: Whether the Fifth Circuit violated this Court's teachings under Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100 (2017) regarding COA, and whether elements or guidelines are required to clarify the undefined term "reasonable jurists"; and whether the court below (as many circuits have heretofore done) is eroding this Court's holding in McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S.Ct. 1500 (2018), granting to the defendant the right to demand his counsel not to concede guilt. -i-