# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 11 82

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Tho m as Mi ch ael Mo rel os

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

- App el la nt

v.

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt - App el le e

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Sio ux Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 19 , 20 12

Fil ed : M arch 14 , 20 13

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MUR PHY, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BYE, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

In 20 07 , Th om as Mi ch ael Mo rel os was co nv ic te d of co ns pi racy t o di st rib ut e

m et ha m ph et am in e an d m ari

juan a. Afte r th e de ni al of hi s di rect ap pe al

, Mo rel os fil ed

th is m ot io n to va cat e, se t as id e, or co rrec t hi s se nt en ce, as se rti ng cl ai m s of

pr os e c u to ria l m is co nd uc t an d in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of bo th tri al an d ap pe ll at eco un se l. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n, ad dr es si ng al l of More lo s’s gro un ds 1

fo r hi s clai m s exc ep t a si ng le all eg at io n M or el os ’s tri al co un se l h ad be en su bjec t to

a n a c tu al co nf

li ct of in te res t whe n hi s li cen se to pr act ic e la w in So ut h Da k o t a h a d

be en su sp en de d. W e ex erci se ou r di sc ret io n to reac h th is al le ga ti on an d affi rm th e

di st ric t co ur t o n a ll is su es

.

I

In 20 07

, Mo rel os w as ch arg ed in Io wa wit h co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e an d

po ss es s wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e 50 0 gr a ms or m or e of m et ha m ph et am in e an d 10 0

ki lo gr am s or m or e of m ari juan a in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), 84 1 (b )(1 )(A),

an d 84 1( b) (1 )(B)

. Mo rel os ’s gi rlf rie n d h i r e d a s hi s tri al co un se l Ro be rt Fi nn ey , a

fo rm er co un ty at to rn ey who ha d su cces sf ul ly pr os ecu te d Mo rel os fo r a st at e cri m e in

Neb ras ka ap pr ox im at el y te n y ears earl ie r, an d who ha d si nc e en te red pr iv at e pr act ic e.

Mo rel os kn ew Fi nn ey ha d pr ev io us l y p r o se cu te d hi m whe n th e two fir st m et

reg ard in g t he dru g t raff

ic ki ng ch arg es

.

I n i ti al ly, Fi nn ey ha d be en li cen se d to pr act ic e la w in Io wa, Neb ras ka

, an d

S o u th Dak ot a. Howev er, aft er Mo rel os ’s tri al co m m en ced

, th e Neb ras ka Su pr eme

Co ur t ad m in is tra ti ve ly su sp en de d Fi nn ey ’s Neb ras k a l a w l ic en se fo r fai lu re to fil e

cert ai n do cu m en ts in an un rel at ed m at te r. Alt ho ug h it was no t di sc ov ered un ti l aft er

th e tri al

, th e su sp en si on of Fi nn ey ’s Neb ras ka li cen se ha d als o cau se d hi s lic en se to

pr act ic e la w in So ut h Dak ot a to be reci pr oc al ly sus pe nd ed

.

The tri al co ur t co n d u c te d a co ll oq uy wit h Mo rel os reg ard in g whe th er th e

su sp en si on of Fi nn ey ’s Neb ras ka la w li cense or Fi nn ey ’s pr io r pr os ecu ti on of hi m ha d

pr om pt ed Mo rel os to wan t to pr oc eed at tri al wit h di ffer en t co un se l. Mo rel os to ld th e

The Hon or ab le Don al d O’ Bri en , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Nor th ern 1

Dis tri ct of I owa

.

-2

-tri al co ur t he was aware of bo t h i s s u e s , he ha d no pr ob le m s wit h pr oc eed in g wit h

Fi nn e y a s h i s t r i a l co un se l, an d he di d no t wan t to ob ta in a di ffer en t at to rn ey to

rep res en t hi m

. The tri al co ur t acce pt ed Mo rel os ’s s t a t e men ts as a waiv er of an y

po te nt ia l co nf

li ct s o f in te res t.

Dur in g it s cas e in ch ie f, th e go ve rn men t p r e s e nt ed th e te st im on y of th ree of

Mo rel os ’s co -co ns pi rat or s, e a c h of who m ha d ag reed to te st ify in ex ch an ge fo r

co ns id erat io n on th ei r own ch arg es

. One o f th e th ree, Ra fael Mu ril lo -Gu zm án

, ha d

be en gr an te d ab so lu te im m un it y reg ard in g an y te st im on y he pr ov id ed ab ou t hi s

m et ha m ph et am in e tr affi ck in g wi th Mo rel os

.

The jury ul ti m at el y co nv ic te d Mo rel os

. He ap pe al ed

, arg ui ng , am on gs t ot he r

is su es whi ch are no t pe rti ne nt he re, Fi nn ey ha d pr ov id ed in effe ct iv e as si st an ce as hi s

tri al co un se l. W e affi rm ed th e tri al co ur t on al l is su es ex cep t th e cl ai m of in effe ct iv e

as si st an ce of co un se l, whi ch we de cl in ed to ad dr es s be cau se th e reco rd reg ard in g th e

cl ai m ha d no t be en pr op erl y de ve lo pe d. Uni te d St at es v. Mo rel os , 54 4 F.3 d 91 6 (8 th

Ci r. 20 08 ).

Mo rel os th en fil ed th e in st an t m ot io n to va cat e, se t as id e, or co rrec t hi s

se nt en ce, pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 22 55

, as se rti ng cl ai m s of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of

tri al an d ap pe ll at e co un se l an d pr os ecu to ria l m is co nd uc t. Afte r an e v i d en ti ary

he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n an d gr an te d Mo rel o s a c e r t i fic at e of

ap pe al ab il it y

on all is su es

.

II

On app eal fro m a de ni al of a 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 m ot io n, we rev ie w th e di st ric t

c o u r t ' s le ga l co nc lu si on s de no vo an d it s fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r. Lo e f e r v

. Uni te d St at es , 60 4 F.3 d 1 0 2 8

, 10 29 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v.

Hern an de z, 43 6 F .3d 85 1, 8 54 -5 5 (8 th Cir . 20 06 )).

-3

-A

W e fir st ad dr es s Mo rel os ’s cl ai m of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of tri al co un se l. To

su ccee d on a cl ai m of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of tri al co un se l, a de fen da nt m us t pr ov e 1) hi s at to rn ey 's pe rfo rm an ce was so de fic ie n t as to fal l ou ts id e th e ran ge of

reas on ab le pr of

es si on al as si st an ce, an d 2) he su ffer ed su ch pr ejud ic e st em m in g fro m

th e de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce th ere is a reason ab le pr ob ab il it y th e pr oc eed in g wou ld ha ve

ha d a di ffer en t res ul t. Uni te d St at es v. Ta yl o r , 2 5 8 F.3 d 81 5, 81 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ).

Fai lu re to es ta bl is h ei th er pr on g is fat al to a cl ai m o f i n e f f e c t iv e as si st an ce.

W or th in gt on v. Ro pe r, 63 1 F.3 d 48 7, 49 8 (8 th Ci r.) (ci ti ng St ric kl an d v. W as hi ng to n,

46 6 U.S. 6 68 , 69 7 (1 98 4) ), cert . den ie d, 1 32 S. Ct. 7 63 (20 11 ).

1

Mo rel os fir st as se rts he was pr ejud ic ed by Fi nn ey ’s fa i l ur e to ad eq ua te ly

im pe ach th e go ve rn m en t’s wit ne ss es at tri al th ro ug h pr op er cro ss -ex am in at io n or th e

rai si ng of ad eq ua te ob

jecti on s. “ [W] e ge ne ral ly en tru st

. . . m at te rs of tri al st rat eg y []

to th e pr of

es si on a l d i s c r e t i on of co un se l.” Uni te d St at es v. Orr, 63 6 F.3 d 94 4, 95 2
(8 th Ci r.) (in te rn al ci ta ti on an d qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

, cert

. de ni ed

, 13 2 S. Ct

. 75 8
(2 01 1)

.

Mo rel os , ho wev er, fai ls to pr ov e he was pr ejud ic ed by ei th er Fi nn ey ’s effo rts

at cro ss -ex am in at io n or fai lu re t o rai se ad di ti on al ob jecti on s. Mo rel os ’s th eo ry of

cro ss -ex am in at io n pre

jud ic e is m erel y sp ecu la ti ve , ge ne ral ly av erri ng if Fi nn ey ha d

pu rs ue d a dd it io na l li ne s of qu es ti on in g wit h each of th e go ve rn m en t’s wi tn es se s, i t

was po ss ib le th os e wit ne ss es wou ld ha ve res po nd ed in su ch a way as to le ss en th ei r

cred ib il it y

. Eve n Mo rel os ’s m os t pe rs ua si ve c l a i m i n th is area , t ha t th e jury wou ld

ha ve di sc red it ed th e te st im on y of Mu ril lo -Gu zm án ha d it le arn ed he ha d be en gr an te d

ab so lu te im m

un it y in st ead of a le ss ad va nt ag eo us pl ea de al

, is m ere sp ecu la ti on ig no rin g th e ev id en ce whi ch co rro bo rat ed th e te st im on y of th e go ve rn m en t’s

-4

-wit ne ss es

. See Mo rel os , 54 4 F.3 d at 91 9 (d is cu ss in g th e ev id en ce co rro bo rat in g th e 2

te st im on y of each wit ne ss ). In ad di ti on , Mo rel os fai ls to s u p p o rt hi s arg um en t

reg ard in g Fi nn ey ’s fai lu re to rai se ad di ti on al ob jecti on s wit h an y de m on st r a t i o n of

pr ejud ic e res ul ti ng fro m th e ad m is si on of th e te st im on y to whi ch he as se rts Fi nn ey

sh ou ld ha ve ob

jecte d.

2

Mo rel os ne xt co nt en ds Fi nn ey pr ov id ed in effe ct iv e as si st an ce du rin g cl os in g

arg um en ts by f

a i l i n g to ex pl ai n to th e jury th e go ve rn m en t’s bu rd en to pr ov e each

wit ne ss cred ib le be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. Howev er, Mo rel os m is ch arac te riz es th e

go ve rn m en t’s bu rd en at tri al

. The go ve rn m en t be ars th e bu rd en of pr ov i n g each

el em en t of a cri m e be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. See, e.g ., Pat te rs on v. New Yor k, 43 2

U.S. 19 7, 20 4 (1 97 7)

. Alt ho ug h th e de te rm in at io n whe th er an el em en t is es ta bl is he d

of te n rest s on a fact fin de r’s as se ss m en t o f th e cred ib il it y of a wit ne ss , a jury is free

to fin d on ly a po rti on of a wit ne ss ’s te st im on y cred ib le whi le reject in g th e res t. See

Uni te d St at es v. Cl os e, 51 8 F

. 3 d 6 1 7

, 62 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v.

Mo nt an o, 50 6 F.3 d 11 28

, 11 33 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 )). Acco rd in gl y , th e go ve rn m en t ne ed

no t pr ov e th e who le of each wit ne ss ’s te st im on y cred ib le be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.

Mo rel os can no t hav e be en pre jud ic ed by Fin ne y ’s fai lu re t o o ffer an ex pl an at io n of

th e go ve rn m en t’s bu rd en whi ch

, if of fere d, wou ld ha ve in accu rat el y ch arac te riz ed th e

bu rd en

.

Mo rel os al so co nt en ds Fi nn ey sh ou ld ha ve ob jecte d t o th e ad m is si on of 2

Mu ril lo -Gu zmá n ’s t e s ti m on y on th e ba si s it ha d be en ob ta in ed in ex ch an ge fo r ab so l u t e i mm

u ni ty. Howev er, an y bi as accr ui ng as a res ul t of rece iv in g im m un it y

wou ld ha ve go ne to th e weig ht to be gi ve n to th e te st im on y , no t it s ad m is si bi li ty.
Acco rd in gl y , ob

jecti ng to th e ad m is si o n of Mu ril lo -Gu zm án ’s te st im on y on su ch a ba si s wo ul d h av e b een un su cces sf ul

.

-5

-3

Mo rel os ne xt co nt en ds he was pr ejud ic ed whe n Fi nn ey fai le d to req ue st an

ad di ti on al jury in st ru ct io n reg ard in g th e tru st wor th in es s of co -co ns pi rat or te st im on y

. Mo rel os , ho wev er, do es no t of fer th e te xt of th e in st ru ct io n he wou ld ha ve ha d Fi nn ey

req ue st an d, th us , ha s no t pr ov id ed th is co ur t wit h a ba si s to de te rm in e whe th er th ere

is a reas on ab le po ss ib il it y th e fai lu re aff

ect ed th e res ul t o f th e tr ia l.

4

Mo rel os ne xt co nt en ds he was pr ejud ic ed by Fi nn ey ’s fai lu re to rai se th e is su e

of whe th er th e go ve rn m en t ha d pr ov en th e type of m et ha m ph et am in e fo r whi ch it ha d

ch arg ed hi m

. “ The go ve rn m en t, fo r se nt en ci ng pu rp os es , be ars th e bu rd en to pr ov e

dr ug type by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce.” Uni te d St a t e s v

. Lug o, 70 2 F.3 d

10 86

, 10 89 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Tho m ps on , 33 5 F.3 d 78 2, 78 4 (8 th

Ci r. 2 0 0 3 ) )

. Und er th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es in effe ct at th e ti m e Mo rel os was

co nv ic te d, a se nt en ci ng co ur t was to cal cu la te a de fen da nt ’s ba se of fen se le ve l wit h 3

reg ard to cri m es in vo lv in g m et ha m ph et am in e on th e ba si s of ei th er th e weig ht of th e

m ix tu re co nt ai ni ng m et ha m ph et am in e or th e weig ht of th e pu re m et ha m ph et am in e in

th e m ix tu re. U.S. Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s Man ua l §§ 2D1 .1 No te s t o Drug Qua nt it y

Tab le (A)-(B ) (2 00 7)

. At tri al

, th e go ve rn m en t pr ov id ed te st im on y reg ard in g th e weig ht of bo th th e pu re m et ha m ph et am in e an d th e weig ht of th e m ix tu re co nt ai ni ng

In hi s in it ia l pr o se br ie f, Mo rel os ba se d th is gr ou nd on th e di st in ct io n be twee n 3
L-Ty pe m et ha m

ph et am in e an d D-Ty

pe m et h a mp h e t am in e. The di st in ct io n in th e

se nt en ci ng gu id el in es be twee n L-Ty pe an d D -T y

pe m et ha m phe ta m ine w as el im ina te d

in 19 95 an d was i m

m at eri al to th e ch arg es ag ai ns t Mo rel os in 20 07

. See Uni te d

S t a t e s v

. Glo ve r, 97 F.3 d 13 45

, 13 47 n.2 (1 0t h Ci r. 19 96 ). Howev er, Mo rel o s ’s

co un se l fo r th e in st an t m ot io n refr am ed Mo rel os ’s arg um en t to ad dr es s th e “ type” of

m et ha m ph et am in e— pu re or m ix tu re —p ert ine nt to th e ch arg es ag ai ns t Mo rel os

. The

di st ric t co ur t ru le d o n t he arg um en t as refra m ed

.

-6

-m et ha m

ph et am in e. Acco rd in gl y , an y arg um en t th e go ve rn m en t ha d fai le d to pr ov id e

su ch ev id en ce wo ul d h av e b een fri vo lo us

.

5

Mo rel os ne xt co nt en d s he was pr ejud ic ed by Fi nn ey ’s f ai lu re to wit hd raw as

hi s co un se l whe n act ua l co nf li ct s of in te res t aro se fro m 1) Fi nn ey ’s hi st or y of ha vi ng

pr ev io us ly pr os ecu te d Mo rel os , 2) th e su sp en si on of Fi nn ey ’s li cen se to pr act ic e la w

in Neb ras ka

, an d 3) th e su sp en si on of Fi nn ey ’s li cen se to pr act ic e la w in So ut h

Dak ot a. A d efen da nt pl ead i ng an in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l cl ai m typic al ly

4

e s t a b l is he s pr ejud ic e un de r th e St ric kl an d st an da rd

. See, e.g ., Tay lo r, 25 8 F.3 d a t

81 8. Mo rel os , ho wev er, urg es us to rev ie w hi s cl ai m s o f act ua l co nf li ct s of int eres t

un de r th e st an da rd of C uyler v . Sul li va n, 4 46 U.S. 33 5 (1 98 0)

.

Und er Cu y le r , w e w il l pr es um e th e pr ejud ic e pr on g is es ta bl is he d whe n a

de fen da nt is ab le to pr ov e hi s co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce was ad ve rs el y a f f e c t e d by an

act ua l co nf

li ct of in te res t whi ch aro se fro m joi nt ly rep res en ti ng m ul ti pl e de fen da nt s.

Id

. at 34 9- 50

. Si nc e th e de ci si on in Cu y le r, bo th th e Su pr em e Co ur t an d th is co ur t

ha ve cab in ed th e lo wer bu rd en in es ta bl is hi ng pr ejud ic e to cas es in whi ch th e al le ge d

a c t u a l co nf

li ct of in te res t aro se fro m co un se l joi nt ly rep res en ti ng m ul ti pl e pa rti es

. Noe v. Uni te d St at es , 6 01 F.3 d 78 4, 79 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) ( c i t i n g M ic ke ns v. Tay lo r,

53 5 U.S. 16 2, 1 74 -1 75 (20 02 )). In fact , we hav e ex pr es sl y refra in ed fro m de ci di ng

whe th er t h e l o wered bu rd en in es ta bl is hi ng pr ejud ic e ap pl ie s to act ua l co nf li ct s of

Alt ho ug h Mo rel os ad v a n c ed hi s arg um en t reg ard in g th e su sp en si on of 4

Fi nn ey ’s So ut h Dak ot a la w li cen se be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t

ru le on th e cl ai m

. W e typic al ly do n o t c o n s i d er is su es no t ru le d on by th e co ur t
be lo w, bu t m ay ex erci se ou r di sc ret io n to res ol ve an is su e in th e fir st in st an ce when

th e pr op er res ol ut io n is no t in do ub t. See San de rs v. Cl em co In du s., 82 3 F.2 d 21 4,

21 7- 18 (8 th Ci r. 19 87 ). W e so ex erci se ou r di sc ret io n he re to ru le on Mo rel os ’s cl ai m

reg ard in g t he su sp en si on of F in ne y ’s li cen se to pra ct ic e la w in So ut h Dak ot a.

-7

-in te res t whi ch di d no t ari se ou t of m ul ti pl e rep res en ta ti on

. Id

. (ci ti ng Co ve y v. Uni te d

St at es , 37 7 F.3 d 90 3, 90 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ); W em ark v. Io wa, 32 2 F.3 d 10 18

, 10 21 (8 th

Ci r. 20 03 )).

Si m il arl y , we de cl in e to de ci de th e is su e he re be cau se we co nc lu de Mo rel os ’s

cl ai m s wou ld fai l un de r th e st an da rd s of ei th er Cu y le r or St ric kl an d. See, e.g ., Noe

, 60 1 F.3 d at 79 0 (co nc lu di ng th e pe ti ti on er wou ld lo se un d e r e it he r Cu y le r or

St ric kl an d a nd de cl in in g t o d eci de th e ap pl ic ab il it y of C uyler).

Und er Cu y le r a de fen da nt m us t pr ov e t h e ex is te nc e of an act ua l co nf li ct of

in te res t. 44 6 U.S. a t 34 8. “ An ‘actu al co nf li ct ,’ fo r Si xt h Am en dm en t pu rp os es , i s

a co nf li ct of in te res t th at ad ve rs el y affe ct s co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce.” Noe

, 60 1 F.3 d

at 79 0 (q uo ti ng Mi ck en s, 53 5 U.S. at 17 4- 75 ). “ The effe ct m us t be act ua l an d

de m on st rab le

, cau si ng th e at to rn ey to ch oo se to en ga ge or no t to en ga ge in pa rti cu la r

co nd uc t.” Id

. (q uo ti ng Co ve y , 37 7 F.3 d at 90 8)

. To pr ov e a c o n f l i c t pr od uc ed an

ad ve rs e effe ct

, a de fen da nt m us t “ id en ti fy a pl au si bl e al te rn at iv e de fen se st rat eg y or

ta ct ic th at de fen se co un se l m ig ht ha ve pu rs ue d, sh ow th at th e al te rn at iv e st rat eg y was

ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le un de r th e fa c ts of th e cas e, an d es ta bl is h th at th e de fen se

co un se l’s fai lu re to pu rs ue th at st rat e g y or ta ct ic was li nk ed to th e act ua l co nf li ct .”

W in fie ld v. Ro pe r, 46 0 F.3 d 10 26

, 10 39 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (q uo ti ng Co ve y , 37 7 F.3 d at

90 8) (in te r n al qu ot at io ns om it te d)

. Ass um in g, ar gu en do

, th e st ep s whi ch Mo rel os

no w cl ai m s Fi nn ey sh ou ld ha ve ta ke n at tri al co ns ti tu te an ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le an d
pl au si bl e tri al st rat eg y , Mo rel os ha s fai le d to es ta bl is h Fi nn ey ’s fai lu re to act as no w

su gg es te d by Mo rel os was li nk ed to th e su sp en si on of ei th er of Fi nn ey ’s li cen se s or

hi s hi st or y of ha vi ng pr os ecu te d Mo rel os

. Acco rd in gl y , Mo rel os ha s no t es ta bl is he d

th e ex is t e n c e of an act ua l co nf li ct of in te res t an d hi s cl ai m wou ld fai l un de r th e

Cu y le r st an da rd

.

Und er th e St ric kl an d st an da rd

, a de fen da nt m us t es t a b l is h bo th de fic ie nt

pe rfo rm an ce an d res ul ti ng pr ejud i c e i n o r d er to su ccee d on a cl ai m of in effe ct iv e

-8

-as si st an ce of co un se l. Tay lo r, 25 8 F .3d at 81 8 (ci ti ng St ric kl an d, 46 6 U.S. a t 68 9)

.

Mo rel os cl ai m s Fi nn ey de fic ie nt ly pe rfo rm ed by no t in de pe nd en tl y wit hd rawi ng du e

to th e p rev io us pro se cu ti on an d s us pe ns io ns of h is Neb ras ka an d Sou th Dak ot a la w

li cen se s. On revi ew, we op erat e on th e “ st ro ng pr es um pt io n t ha t cou ns el ’s co nd uc t

fa l l s wit hi n a wid e ran ge of reas on ab le pr of es si on al as si st an ce.” Id

. The cas e in

whi ch Fi nn ey ha d pr os ecu te d Mo rel os co nc ern ed an un rel at ed st at e m at te r an d ha d

be en tri ed ap pr ox im at el y a de cad e pr io r t o th e rep res en ta ti on at is su e in a di ffer en t
juri sd ic ti on

. In ad di ti on , Mo rel os hi red Fi nn ey to rep res en t hi m aware of th e pr ev io us

pr os ecu ti on an d co nt in ue d to em pl oy hi m aft er th e two ha d di sc us se d th e pr ev io us

pr os ecu ti on at th ei r fir st m eet in g. Giv en th es e ci rcu m st an ce s , we can no t co nc lu de

Fi nn ey ’s de ci si on n ot to in de pe nd en tl y wit hd raw ov er th e fact of hi s pr ev io us

pr os ecu ti on of Mo rel os st rayed be y on d th e ran ge of reas on ab le pr of es si on al

as si st an ce.

Nor can we co nc lu de on th e reco rd be fo re us th at Fi nn e y’s d e c i s i on no t to

in de pe nd en tl y wit hd raw ov e r th e su sp en si on of hi s li cen se s to pr act ic e la w in

Neb ras ka an d So ut h Dak ot a st rayed be y on d t h e real m of reas on ab le pr of es si on al

as si s ta nc e. At th e ti m e Mo rel os hi red Fi nn ey , Fi nn ey was li cen se d to pr act ic e in

Io wa, Neb ras ka, an d So ut h Dak ot a. Eve n th ou gh th e su sp en si on s m ean t Fi nn ey co ul d

no t la wfu ll y pr act ic e la w in th e st at es of Neb ras ka an d So ut h Dak ot a, Mo rel os ha s no t

de m on st rat ed an y way in whi ch ei t he r of th os e su sp en si on s ne ga ti ve ly im pa ct ed

Fi nn e y’s ab il it y to pr act ic e la w in a fed eral co ur t in Io wa su ch th at hi s co nt in ue d

se rv ic e as Mo rel os ’s tri al co un se l fell ou ts id e th e sc op e of as si st an ce gu aran te ed by

th e Si xt h Am en dm e n t

. To be cl ear, we do no t ho ld th e su sp en si on of a la wy er’s

li cen se in on e juri sd ic ti on m ay ne ve r im pa ct th e la wy er’s ab il it y to ren de r reas on ab le

pr of es si on al as si st an ce i n a n o t h e r. W e m erel y ho ld Mo rel os ha s fai le d to carr y hi s

bu rd en to pr ov e th e su sp en si on of Fi nn ey ’s li cen se s to p ract ic e in two ot he r juri sd ic ti on s ren de red hi s de ci si on no t to in de pe nd en tl y wit hd raw fro m a cas e be in g

tri ed in a juri sd ic ti on in whi ch he co ul d st il l la wfu ll y pr act ic e, fel l ou ts id e th e real m

of reas on ab le pr of

es si on al as si st an ce. Acco rd in gl y , Mo rel os ’s cl ai m of Fi nn ey

-9

-ren de rin g in effe ct iv e as si st an ce by fai li ng to in de pe nd en tl y wit hd raw wou ld al so fai l

un de r th e St ric kl an d s ta nd ard

. 5

B

W e tu rn to Mo rel os ’s cl ai m s of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of ap pe ll at e co un se l. To

es ta bl is h in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of ap pe ll at e co un se l, a de fen da nt m us t sh ow 1) hi s

ap pe ll at e co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce fel l be lo w an ob jecti ve st an da rd of reas on ab le ne ss ,

an d 2) th e de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce pr ejud ic ed hi s de fen se

. Zin zer v. St at e of Io wa, 60

F.3 d 1 29 6, 1 29 9 (8 th Cir . 19 95 ).

Mo rel os as se rts he was pr ejud ic ed by hi s ap pe ll at e co un se l’s fai lu r e to

ad eq ua te ly arg ue on di rect ap pe al Fi nn ey ’s f ai lu re to m ak e ad eq ua te ob jecti on s or

in de pe nd en tl y wit hd raw as Mo rel os ’s co un se l. Mo rel os al s o a r g ue s hi s ap pe ll at e

co un se l was in effe ct iv e in fai li ng to rai se on di rect ap pe a l a ny of th e rem ai ni ng

gr ou nd s Mo rel os no w as se rts in su pp or t of hi s in effe ct iv e tri al co un se l cl ai m

. Bec au se we co nc lu de al l of Mo rel os ’s gr ou nd s fo r hi s cl ai m of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce

of tri al co un se l are un av ai li ng , Mo rel os ha s fai le d to pr ov e he su ffer ed an y pr ejud ic e

fro m th e m an ne r in whi c h h i s ap pe ll at e co un se l ha nd le d hi s di rect ap pe al

. Acco rd in gl y , Mo rel os ’s cl ai m of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of ap pe ll at e co un se l m us t al so

fai l.

Mo rel os arg ue s t h e di st ric t co ur t’s co ll oq uy was in su ffi ci en t to co ns ti tu te a

5

waiv er of hi s rig ht to co nf li ct -fre e co un se l. S e e U n i t ed St at es v. Brek ke

, 15 2 F.3 d

10 42

, 10 45 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ) (th e rig ht to co nf li ct -fre e co u n se l m ay be waiv ed ).

Howev er, be cau se we co nc lu de Mo rel os ha s fai le d to pr ov e th e ex is te nc e of a co nf li ct
of in te res t, we n eed no t ad dr es s wh et he r Mo rel os waiv ed an y su ch co nf

li ct s.

-1 0-C

Fi na ll y , we tu rn to Mo rel os ’s cl ai m of pr os ecu to ria l m is co nd uc t, in su pp or t of

w hich Mo rel os of

fers on ly un su pp or te d al le ga ti on s reg ard in g th e m an ne r in whi ch his

co -co ns pi rat or s te st ifi ed an d sp ecu la ti on th e pr os ecu to r co ach ed th e te st im on y

. W e

fin d n o m eri t i n M or el os ’s un su pp or te d a ll eg at io ns

.

III

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 1-