Christopher Hampton v. Jonathan Nance — 4th Cir. (Oct 14, 2026)

The Fourth Circuit hears Christopher Hampton's challenge to his South Carolina murder conviction. The prosecution's case included his confession and the victim's blood in his apartment; Hampton pleaded guilty to murder. He says officers questioned him after he asked for a lawyer, and that his lawyer should have moved to suppress, or keep out, the confession. State postconviction litigation and belated appeals followed; the federal district court denied habeas relief and refused to reopen the judgment. On reconsideration, it relied on the guilty plea as a waiver of a challenge to the confession. This is not a new murder trial: the appeal concerns the constitutional adequacy of counsel and federal review of the state proceedings. PCR means postconviction relief, the state proceedings challenging the conviction after the criminal case. Under Edwards, police generally may not restart custodial questioning after a suspect asks for counsel merely because the suspect then answers their questions. Under Strickland, ineffective assistance requires professionally unreasonable performance and resulting prejudice. For a guilty-plea challenge, prejudice means a reasonable probability that, without counsel's errors, the defendant would have rejected the plea and insisted on trial. Section twenty-two fifty-four gives special deference to state decisions on the merits; federal disagreement alone is not enough to overturn them. Subsection F deals with producing the pertinent state-court record when a state factual finding is challenged. Kyle Singhal will present Hampton's appeal.
Christopher Hampton v. Jonathan Nance (No. 25-6151) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued October 14, 2026.
Sources:
Argument audio — official Fourth Circuit recording:
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/25-6151-20261014.mp3
Case, date and advocates — official recording archive:
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files
Court and October 14, 2026 hearing — official calendar:
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/cal/internetcalOct142026.pdf
Factual and procedural background — actual district court order, February 18, 2025, pages 1–5; allegations distinguished from findings:
1:2021cv01377/264178/94/0.pdf?ts=1739983875" rel="nofollow">https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/south-carolina/scdce/1:2021cv01377/264178/94/0.pdf?ts=1739983875
Issues permitted on appeal — actual February 19, 2026 court order, public copy; not a merits result:
https://dfcdd5a9-9b15-4935-912e-ae43c216297d.filesusr.com/ugd/dba2bb_08e38c687b26466797ee6cc9f7d5b318.pdf?index=true
Counsel identity — current-case appearance entry 5, March 10, 2025; older docket snapshot:
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca4/25-6151
Federal habeas review — 28 U.S.C. §2254, especially (d), (e) and (f):
https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/28/2254
Custodial request for counsel — Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 482–485; general doctrine:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-451/pdf/USREPORTS-451-477.pdf
Effective assistance — Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–688 and 694:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-466/pdf/USREPORTS-466-668.pdf
Guilty-plea prejudice — Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57–59; not a finding about Hampton:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-474/pdf/USREPORTS-474-52.pdf