Law360 (June 2, 2026, 8:37 PM EDT) -- The California Supreme Court has reversed the convictions of a man sentenced to death, saying his defense attorney violated his rights at trial by conceding his guilt, over his objection, in a series of deadly shootings and other crimes.

In a published opinion Monday, the state's high court said defendant Samreth Pan's trial attorney told jurors during closing arguments that he was defending "the damned," despite his obligation to pursue Pan's desire to maintain his innocence.

"We conclude that defense counsel here failed to do so and thereby deprived Pan of his right to choose the fundamental objective of his defense," according to the opinion authored by Justice Joshua Groban.

The opinion follows an automatic appeal in the capital case, which stems from shootings that occurred in summer 1995 in Sacramento and Pomona, California.

Pan and his co-defendant, Run Chhuon, were allegedly in a group that shot three people, killing two, in a Sacramento apartment during a home-invasion robbery. Less than two weeks later, they allegedly killed another man in a drive-by shooting in Pomona.

During closing arguments, Pan's trial counsel believed the evidence against his client was overwhelming and angled for a second-degree murder conviction against Pan's wishes, according to the opinion.

"One of the things you should know, that the role of the defense attorney is here to thank you and to defend the damned," he told jurors. "The damned, because obviously I am not going to insult your intelligence by telling you that my guy or my client was not involved or did not know of or was not at the scene of these events."

He went on to argue that Pan had initially gone along with plans to rob people in Sacramento but backed out when the crime began.

"What did [Pan] do to assist that murder in Sacramento? Zero," he said.

A prosecutor seized on the admission in rebuttal arguments, telling jurors that the defendant had admitted to being present at the scenes of the murders and calling it a gambit to reduce a clear case of first-degree murder to second-degree murder.

Pan wrote a letter to the judge the next day protesting his attorney's actions.

"I specifically instructed my lawyer not to claim any guilt on my behalf, which he failed to do so during closing argument, which I was tempted to cause a scene once I heard him claim something I instructed him not to do; but I restrained myself out of respect for the court and Your Honor and just decided to approach this issue as I am now," the letter said, according to the opinion.

The defense attorney told the court it was "a strategic move for me to argue for second-degree murder in order that at least we do not face the death penalty, and hopefully, it will come back with three second-degree murders."

On Monday, the California Supreme Court also threw out a gang enhancement for Chhuon, but left intact the remainder of his judgment. Justice Goodwin Liu filed a concurring and dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Kelli Evans and Martin Jenkins, contending that Chhuon's death sentence should be vacated because prosecutors used racially charged language at trial.

Pan is represented by Joseph Walsh.

Chhuon is represented by Alexander Post of the Office of the State Public Defender.

The government is represented by Louis Karlin, Rhonda Cartwright-Ladendorf, Collette Cavalier and Joshua Klein of the California Office of the Attorney General.

The case is People v. Run Peter Chhuon and Samreth Sam Pan, case number S105403, in the Supreme Court of California.

--Editing by Janice Carter Brown.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.