Garrett Ige was not provided ineffective counsel despite his claims that his attorney failed to investigate his brother’s confession to the murder charges he was convicted of in 1996, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal ruled Dec. 8.
The unpublished ruling said that his attorney did in fact investigate Kenden Ige’s confession, but that Kenden had motive to lie to save Garrett from prison, and that Kenden’s confession conflicted with impartial eyewitness testimony that Kenden was not present at the scene of the crime at all.
The attorney told Garrett that “he would not seek admission of the confession because it would not seem credible because (Garrett) and Kenden were siblings,” according to the appellate ruling.
The Ninth Circuit agreed that the inclusion of the confession would not have changed Garrett’s conviction.
Garrett Ige and Lawrence Hughes II were charged with killing Cheuk “Alan” Cheung and Haang “Edward” Chin, according to an earlier California appellate ruling that dealt with the case.
Garrett owed Cheung rental money for a failed psychedelic mushroom farm. Garrett said that Kenden admitted to the homicide to protect Garrett. Cheung had threatened to kill Garrett over the rent money, Garrett said.
Garrett Ige filed a habeas corpus petition in 1996, and it was denied by the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court before reaching the Ninth Circuit.
Case No. 5:18-cv-01237
Appellate Case No. 19-56209
California Central District Judge Percy Anderson presided.
Ninth Circuit Judges Carlos Bea, Milan Smith and Lawrence VanDyke heard the appeal.
Read the appellate ruling here.