⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Sixth Circuit considers a plea offer that never reached a teenage defendant. In 2000, fourteen-year-old Chris McGorman shot and killed a classmate in a barn behind his home in Kentucky. He confessed, but his defense at trial was insanity. The jury convicted him of murder, and he received a life sentence. Before trial, prosecutors offered a twenty-year sentence if he pleaded guilty. His lawyer told his parents about the offer, and they rejected it. McGorman says he never received it and would have accepted it. State courts denied relief, reasoning that he would have followed his parents and gone to trial anyway. A federal district court later granted relief on the plea claim. The warden now appeals. This is a habeas corpus case, a challenge to the legality of state custody, not a new trial over the killing. The Strickland test requires constitutionally deficient lawyering and resulting prejudice. The warden concedes that the lawyer should have conveyed the offer directly. The disputed part is prejudice: whether, with competent advice, there is a reasonable probability that McGorman would have accepted, prosecutors would have kept the offer available, the court would have approved it, and the outcome would have been less severe. You will also hear AEDPA, the federal law limiting habeas relief. Under Title Twenty-Eight, Section Twenty-Two Fifty-Four, disagreement with a state court is not enough. This appeal centers on whether the state court unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court law. Jack Heyburn will argue first for the warden, asking the court to reverse the federal ruling. Dennis Burke will represent McGorman, seeking to preserve that relief. He will contend that the state courts wrongly used the parents' control of the defense to excuse the harm caused by counsel's failure.

Chris McGorman v. Abigail Caudill (No. 26-5168) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, argued October 22, 2026.