⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The First Circuit considers whether a defense lawyer's failure to challenge a phone search undermined a murder conviction. Felix Melendez was convicted in Massachusetts after two earlier juries failed to agree on the murder charge. Prosecutors linked him to the victim's jewelry, some of which he had pawned, and used material from his phone to support their account of his motive and conduct. His trial lawyer did not seek suppression of those phone contents on constitutional grounds. The state's highest court later found that the search-warrant affidavit did not connect the phone to the crime. It nevertheless upheld the conviction, relying on other evidence. Melendez now seeks federal habeas relief, a challenge to the legality of his imprisonment. His lawyer will argue that asking whether the remaining evidence could support a conviction is different from asking whether the lawyer's error creates a reasonable probability of a different result. That probability must be enough to undermine confidence in the verdict; acquittal need not be more likely than not. The state will defend the ruling, arguing that the state court's review adequately protected his federal rights. The judges will also explore exhaustion: whether the state courts had a fair opportunity to decide the federal constitutional claim before it reached federal court. Federal law generally requires that opportunity and gives substantial deference to state decisions resolving federal claims on their merits.

Melendez v. Kennedy (No. 25-2151) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued November 2, 2026.