In 2002, the
Nevada Supreme Court denied Margaret Rudin's appeal, finding she was not denied effective assistance of counsel. As of 2008, no record of federal collateral review could be found. In 2008, Rudin was given a new trial. Clark County District Judge Sally Loehrer ruled that lawyers for Margaret Rudin were not prepared to defend her at her 2001 trial, according to lawyers on both sides of the case. She also ruled that Michael Amador, Rudin's lead attorney at the time, was not effective, according to Christopher Oram, Rudin's new attorney. In fact, Amador's co-counsel on the case, Tom Pitaro, wrote in an
affidavit that Amador had been shockingly unprepared, with experts not hired and witnesses left unprepared. Amador was also accused of conflict of interest, having allegedly sold information to the
National Enquirer while also working on a book about the case during the trial. On May 10, 2010, the
Nevada Supreme Court ruled that Rudin would not get another trial, as reported by KLTV-8 News. The lower appeals court's ruling was overturned, and the original conviction stood. The
Las Vegas Sun reported on April 26, 2011 that Margaret Rudin had filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court seeking a new trial and reversal of her conviction, based upon ineffective assistance of trial counsel, impermissible hearsay testimony, faulty jury instructions and other points. On January 25, 2012, U.S. District Court Judge
Roger L. Hunt dismissed Margaret Rudin's federal habeas corpus case with prejudice. In a nine-page decision, Judge Hunt found that Rudin's federal petition was not filed in a timely manner. The ruling paved way for an appeal to the
Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco. On September 10, 2014, in a split decision by a three-judge panel, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing Rudin's federal habeas corpus case, despite what it acknowledged to be serious issues with her representation and prosecution, both pre- and post-conviction. The court deemed that it was compelled to deny her petition, although it acknowledged that it was "troubled" by the case. Excerpts from the Opinion's Conclusion: We are troubled by the outcome of this case for many reasons. Margaret Rudin's direct appeal and collateral review proceedings have been pending in either state or federal court for a combined total of 13 years. She has potentially meritorious claims that she has suffered prejudice at the hands of her own attorneys' egregious misconduct. Yet she has never had an opportunity to present those claims in court. Rudin's defense counsel, Amador, indisputably engaged in egregious professional misconduct during the course of her underlying criminal trial. On direct appeal of her judgment of conviction, the Nevada Supreme Court acknowledged that Rudin's trial was plagued not only with inadequacies on the part of defense counsel, but also with prosecutorial misconduct and legal error on the part of the State and the court. Although two members of the Nevada Supreme Court found the record sufficiently clear as to the "inherent prejudice created by [trial counsel]" to require immediate reversal of Rudin's judgment of conviction, a majority of the court declined to address the effect of those errors, finding them more appropriate for resolution on collateral review. [A]t this point, Rudin is still in prison, having served 13 years of her life sentence for murder. We know from the state post-conviction court that the State's "proof of guilt [at that trial] was not a slam dunk by any stretch of the imagination." We also know from the post-conviction court that, had Rudin been represented by competent counsel, the jury's verdict may have been different. Thus, what we do not know is whether Rudin is lawfully imprisoned. And, regrettably, that is something we may never know. On March 10, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals withdrew its opinion of September 10, 2014. In its revised opinion, they affirmed the trial court's decision that Rudin was entitled to a new trial as a direct result of the professional misconduct and prejudicial conflict of interest by Michael Amador, her original trial lawyer. On February 29, 2016, the
United States Supreme Court denied a petition by the attorney general of Nevada challenging the Ninth Circuit's ruling. In October, 2019, Rudin was granted parole. She walked out of prison on January 10, 2020. Nonetheless, she made clear that she would pursue every available avenue to have her conviction overturned. In May 2022, United States District Judge
Richard F. Boulware vacated the murder conviction of the 78-year-old Rudin after she had spent 20 years in prison. Boulware ruled that Rudin received ineffective legal representation from her late defense attorney. The state announced that they would no longer pursue the case, although they never said that they knew her to be innocent, either. Charges were dismissed on December 9, 2024; this enabled her to sue the state for wrongful conviction. ==Release==