“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
Trump Ninth Circuit judge Ryan Nelson wrote the opinion and cast the deciding vote in a case that rejected an appeal of a death sentence, even though the dissenting judge found “serious doubt” that the accused actually committed the murders and that the work by defense counsel was “constitutionally defective.” The July 2025 ruling was in Hampton v Shinn.
What happened in this case?
Tracy Hampton was at a house in Phoenix where significant drug abuse and other activity occurred all morning. Shortly after noon, there was an altercation and shooting. Several people left the house, including Hampton and Misty Ross, who had been “getting high on methamphetamines.” Two weeks later, Hampton was arrested for shooting two people he knew who had been at the house, Charles Findlay and Tanya Ramsdell.
The evidence against Hampton at trial consisted primarily of the testimony of Ross, who claimed that she saw Hampton shoot one of the victims and heard him shoot the other, and of a pretrial cellmate of Hampton, who claimed Hampton confessed to the crimes while in jail. Hampton was convicted and sentenced to death. After exhausting his appeal and state court proceedings, Hampton filed for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, contending that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied the writ and the case went to the Ninth Circuit.
How did Trump judge Nelson rule and why is the result harmful?
Trump Judge Nelson wrote a 2-1 opinion affirming the decision and denying the request for habeas corpus. Conservative judge Milan Smith, who was nominated by President George W Bush, joined Nelson’s opinion. They rejected numerous claims by Hampton, including the contention that he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel.
Judge Michelle Friedland, who was nominated by President Obama, strongly dissented. She explained that Hampton’s trial counsel was “constitutionally defective” because there was no “reasonable justification’ for their failure to call two witnesses who would have testified that a different person had committed the murder and a third witness who would have cast significant “doubt on the credibility” of Ross. Even the state, she noted, had acknowledged that the testimony of Hampton’s cellmate was “thoroughly impeached” because he had received a plea deal in exchange for his testimony. Friedland concluded that the majority did not accurately apply relevant precedent on failure to provide constitutionally adequate counsel to some one like Hampton.
This case obviously has an impact on Tracy Hampton and his quest to prevent the imposition of the death penalty, as well as others in a similar situation, particularly in the Ninth Circuit, which includes California, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. It also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.