The H onorab le Sarah E vans Barker, Un it ed Stat es D is tr ic t  Cour tf or the So uthe rnDis t ri c tofI n di a n a, s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 3183 B Y R ON B LA KE, P et it ioner-App el lant, v. U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 3:09- cv-555- GPM— G . Patri ckMu rp hy, Judge
.
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 22, 2 0 1 3 —D ECI DE D J UL Y 25, 2013

Befo re R IPPLE a nd R OV NER, C ircu it Judges , a nd B ARKER, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  B ARKER, D i s t r i ctJudg e . Thi s a pp ealbr ought by Pe titi one r By r o n Bl ak e ( “Bl ak e” ) s ee k s o urr ev i ew o fthe di st r i ctc o ur t’ s den i alo fhi s habe as pe ti ti o n, b r o ug ht pu rs uantt o 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 2 5 5 t o c ha l l e ng e h i s c o nv i c-2 N o. 11

- 3183 ti ons and sentence

. Bl ake ’ s p rim ar y l ega l i ssue i s that each o fhi s three ( actual l y four) pri orat torneys, r especti ve l y, s ubj ecte d hi m t o ine ffec ti ve a ss i st an ce dur i ng th e v ar iou s s ta ge s o f h is p ro s ec u tio n an d ap p ea l. R eso l vingthe se c l ai m s r equi r es a de ta i l ed f ac tu ale xp lic a t i o n, bu t t h e c on tr ollin g leg al p rin c ip les refle c t w ell set tl ed l aw . H avi ng ca re full y r evi ew ed Bla ke’s cl ai m s, w e a re per suaded that the Di str i ct Cour t’ s denia l o f hi s peti ti on f orhabea s r el i efw as w el l f ounded ; thus, we a ffi r m th e r u l i n g ( s ) b e l o w.

I . B AC KGR OUND O n O c to b er 19 , 200 6, a fe d e r a l g ra n d j u ry co n ve n ed in th e S o uthe r n Di str i cto fI l l i no i s r etur ne d a o ne - co unt i nd ictm en t ag ains t Bl ak e an d a c o - defen dan t ch ar g i ng th em wi ththe o ffen se o fc o ns pi r ac y t o di stribute an d posse ss coca i ne i n vi ol atio n o f 21 U

. S. C. § 8 46. Bl ake r e t a i n e d a t t o r n e y s F r a n k R
. F a b b r i ( “ F a b b r i ” ) a n d Ni c kA. Zotos t o r e pr e s e nth i m, a nd the y e nt e r e d the i r a pp ea ra n c es on O c to b er 3 0 , 2 00 6. A tria l d at e w as init ially setf o r J a nu a r y 9 , 2 0 0 7, we l l wi thin the s e v e nty days re quir ed by the S peedy Tri alA ct, 18 U
. S. C. §§ 3161 et seq
. U nbekn ow n st to Blak e ( and app ar entl y o nl y t o Blak e) at the t i m e, M r. Fab b ri w as, hi m sel f, under cr i m i nal invest igation by federa l law e n force m en t officers f or a fel ony offense unrel ate d to the c harg es aga i nst Blake. T o avoid p rosecu t iv e c onfli cts of int erest, the Fabb ri i nv es ti g at i o n w as be i ngs upe r vi se d b y a n a ss i st an t U n ite d Sta te s A tt or n ey from th e C en tr a l D ist ric t o f Ill i-N o. 11

- 3183 3 noi s. Bl ake ’ s ca se w as ove rs een by A ssi sta nt U ni ted S tat es A tto rneyR anl ey K i l l i an in the S outher n Dis tr i ct o fI l l i noi s. A t the tim e the Blake p rosecu tion com m en ced , A U SA K i l l i an was apparentl y a w ar e that a n ongo i ng cr i m i nal i nv es ti g at i o n was u nd er way t ar g et i ngM r . F ab br i, b ut K i l l i an’ s know l edg e w as li m i ted since he and the o ther pros ecuto rs i n hi s d i str i ct ha d been “ scr eened o ff ” fro m th e F ab br i i nv estig at i o n t o a vo i d c o nfl i ct s o fint er es t. The re cor d refl ects thatKil l i an poss ess ed no inform ati on r eg ar di ngthe mer i ts of the F ab br i i nv es ti g at i o n. H o wev er, he a nd c er ta i n o th erAU S As fr o m the So uthern Dist ri ct o fI l l i noi s had been i nfo rm ed that ther e was a p oss ibi l i ty that they w oul d be ca l l ed to te stify as wi tn es se s i n the F ab br i pr o se cut i o n, i fa n indict m ent were r etur ned and the cas e went to tr i al

. Bl ake m aintain s bu t w ithou t citi ng any eviden tiary sup p ort that despit e the “scr eeni ng off ” of the So uthern D ist ri ct o fI l l i no i s pr o se cut o r s f r o m the F ab bripr o se cut i o n, the l awy er s h ad no ne th el es s co m m uni ca te d wi tho ne a no th erabo uthi s ca se a s wel l a s th e F ab br i i nv es ti g at i o n. Inth e a b se n c e o f a n y e vid en c e t o c or ro b or at e h is su sp icio n, w e t re at th is a ss er tio n as m er ely th at – a s u sp ici o n. A pp ro xi m ate l y o ne week f ol l owing the e ntry by M r. Fabbr i o fhi s a pp ear ance on be hal fo fBl ake, thati s, on N ove m ber8, 20 06, Bl ake su b m itte d to a pro ffer session w ith th e govern m e n t i nv estigators w hich i nt ervie w h ad be en arr an ge d or a t le as t c on se n te d t o b y h is co uns el

. Bl ak e’ s co - defen dan t al so ha d pa r ti ci pat ed i n a profferse ssi on w ith law enf or cem ent a gents si x days4 N o. 11

- 3183

A

- 02. 1 pri or . Bl ake poi nts o ut thathi s pro fferse ssi on o ccu rr ed

1 be f o r e M r . F ab br i ha d co nduc te d a r ev i ew o f th e governm ent’ s di scov er y m ate ri al s, so M r. Fabbr i ’ s a dvic e that he s ub mi tt o tha ti nt e r v i e w a pp a r e nt l y wa s b a sed si m pl y o n th e na tu r e o f th e al l eg at i o ns as se r te d in the i ndi ct m en t ag ains t Bl ake, orM r . F ab br i ’ s se ns e o fthe str ength ofthe gov er nm ent’ s ca se or, per ha ps, bec ause B l a k e ’ s c o - d e fe n d a n th a d a l r e a d y d o n e l i k e w i s e , o r s o me com bi nati on o fthese f acto rs . The r eco rd i s undevel oped as to M r. Fabbr i ’ s thi nki ng o r i ntenti ons. On D ecem ber15 , 20 06, M r. Fabbr i filed a m oti on t o c o n t i nu e th e J a n u a r y 9 , 2 0 0 7t r i a l d a t e . O n D e c e mbe r 1 8th, a t a fi na l pr et r i alc o nfer en ce c o nd uc ted b y the d i s t r i c tj u d g e , B l a k e , a p p a r e n t l y l e a r n i n g f o r th e fi r s tt i me th at h is c ou n se l w as se ek in g a co n tin u an c e o ft h e tria l, em ph at i cal l y obj ecte d to any c onti nuance, st re ssi ng tha t he abs ol utel y wanted to go to tr ial on J anuary9th, as cur r en tly s ch edu led. F ac ed wi thhi s cl i en t’ s o bj ec ti o n, M r. Fabbr i withdrew the m oti on f orco nti nuance. Fol l owing the pr etr i alco nfe re nce o n Decem ber18 , 2006, AU S A K i l l i anl ea r ne d tha t ani ndi ct m en t o fM r. Fa b b ri w as im m in en t, p ro m p tin g h im to im m ed iat ely wi th dr aw fr o m fur th err es po ns ibi l i tyf o r o r i nv o l ve m ent i n Bla ke’ s pro secuti on. A U SA K i l l i an was re pla ced on the Bl ake pro secuti on byA U SAs Garri son and Boyce. T wo day s th e r e a ft e r, o n D e c e mb e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 6 , th e t wo ne wl y a ss i gn ed A USAs fi l ed a se al ed m o ti o n wi ththe dist ri ct c ourtse eking a j ud i ci aldeter m i nati on a s t oN o. 11

- 3183 5

R es pon dent- A pp el le e’ s A pp ’ x at1. 2 R es pon dent- A pp el le e’ s A pp ’ x at3. 3 whe the r Mr
. F a b b r i ’ s r e pr e s e nt a t i o n ofBl a k e p r e s e nt e d a confl i ct o fi nterest
. I n that m oti on, the gov er nm ent s tat ed that i t “ bel i eve [ d] that Attor ney F abbr i has an actual, o r at l eas t a si gni fi cant pot enti alco nfl i ct o fi nter es t in re presenting Byr on Bl ake , ” and thus i t br ought the i ssue to 2 th e j udg e’ s attention s ee k i nga de te r m i na ti o n a s to the na tu r e an d e xt en t of th e c o nfl i ct, i fa ny . The g o ve r nm en t als o s ta te d in it s m ot ion th at w h ile th e m ot ion co u ld have been bro ught “a t a n ear l i erpoi nt i n ti m e, ” the go ver n m en t “ u n til re c e n t l y b elie ve d th at th e c as e w as in a pos ture wh er e there was m or e t i m e pr i or t o tr ial of thi s m att er, and t h at the i nvest i gat i on o fA tto rney Fabbr i would h ave proc eeded to a pros ecuti on bythat poi nt i n ti m e which w oul d l i kel y hav e s el f

- re sol ved th e is su e.” 3 O n D ecem ber 19, 2006, th e new ly a s s ign ed prose cu tors fi l ed a s entenci ng enhancem ent no ti fi cati on under 2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 51 ( a) , inform i ngthe c o ur t ( an d Bl ak e) o fthe govern m en t’s i nt en tion to invoke at sen ten cing B lake’s pri orco ntro l l ed substa nce o ffense convi cti on, i fa convi ct i o n e ns ue d. The c o nfl i cto fi nt er es t m oti o n fi l ed bythe g o ve r nm ent was pro m ptl y c onsi dered bythe dist ri ct j u d ge at a h e a r i ngc o nv e ned o n De c e mbe r 2 8 , 2 0 0 6
. P r i o r t o a ddress i ng the i ssues r ai sed i n the sea l ed m ot i on fi l ed by the g ove rnm ent, wh i l e M r. Fabbr i was sti l l co unsel o f r ec o r d, the di st r ict j udg e appo i nt ed at to r ne y S te ve n V. St engerto r epres ent Bl ake f orpurp os es ofthathear i ng.6 N o. 11

- 3183

A

- 56. 4 B e f o r e th e mo t i o n c o u l d b e a ddr e s s e d b y th e c o u r t, h o wev er , M r. Fa b b ri m ov ed to w ith d ra w as B lak e’s c o u n se l, w hi ch r equest t h e courtgr anted. M r. S tenge r’ s a pp oi ntm ent t o re prese nt Bl ake was then ex pand ed by the j ud ge to i ncl ud e a l l m att er s r el ate d to hi s defense. M r. S tenge r sta ted to the cour t that he i nten ded to fi l e a m oti on see ki ng Bl ake ’ s re lea se on bo nd pending tr i al

. I n l i ght o f M r . S te ng er’ s pr o po se d fi l i ng, the c o ur t se t a bo nd hear i ng f orJ anu ar y 9, 2007, wh i ch w as, co i nci dental l y, the s am e date as Bl ake ’ s o ri gi nal tr i alse tting. A t the Decem ber28 th hear i ng, the dist ri ct j ud ge al so re setBl ake ’ s t ri alf orA pri l 17, 20 07, t o refl ect the c hange i n defe nse c ounseland the need f or ad dit i onalpre parati o n t i m e f o r the t r i al

. W he n co uns elf o r the g o ve r nm en t i nquir ed of the dist ri ct j ud ge w hether the tim e p eri od between the fi l i ng o fthei r confl ict ofi nter estm oti on and the J anuary9, 20 07 bond hearin g w oul d be tol l ed und erthe Speedy Tri alA ct ( “the A ct”) , the j ud ge tem pori zed , s aying, “Idon’ t know . Thi s i s a n unusual si tu at i o n. “ No s uchfi ndi ngwas e ve r m ade b y the

4 dist ri ct j ud ge. I t i s l i kel y that o ne o fthe thi ngs that m ade the s i tuati on “u n u su al” in t h e jud ge ’s m in d w as th at ap p ro x im at ely ei ght m onths earl i erhe ha d been info rm ed ofa si m i l ar all egation of a con fl ict of interest on th e pa rt of M r. Fabbri i n an othe r c r i m i na l pr o se cut i o n. On th ato cc as i o n, the confl i ct i ssue w as re sol ved w i thout any di re ct invol veme n tb y th e d i s t r i c tc o u r t, w h i c h l e d th e j u d g e t o a s s u meN o. 11

- 3183 7

A

- 2, A-4. 5 A

- 4. 6 that M r. Fabbr i apparent l y had had no confl i ct o fi nt er est afte r a l l

. W he n the c o nfl i cti ss ue a r o se in B lake ’ s ca se , the dist ri ct j ud ge re cal l ed the pri orsi tuati on, but, bec ause th at d efe n d an t e lec te d to p ro c e e d w ith M r. Fa b b ri as h is c ou n se l, he “j ust a ssum ed that the m att erhad re sol ved i ts el fo ne way o r the o th er . ” I n n ei th erc as e was the dis tr i ct j ud ge re quir ed to m ake an inquir y hi m sel fo r a r uling. 5 Du ring Bl ake ’ s J anuary9, 20 07 bond hear i ng, t h e g over nm ent a gai n re quested thatthe ti m e p er iod betw een th e fi l i ngof t he b o nd r edu ct i o n mot i o n b y De fen dan t an d th e d at e o f th at h ea rin g b e d e em ed ex c lu d ab le und erthe Speedy Tri alA ct c al cul ati ons bas ed o n an “ends o fj usti ce” fi nd i ng bythe dist ri ct c ourt
. The j ud ge, how eve r, a gai n re f ra i ned f ro m ente ring tha t fi nd i ng, st at in g th at “[a ]p p ar en tly ev er yo n e w as aw ar e o ft h is si tuat ion , b ut i t was o nl y when the defendant j um ped up and sai d he w anted to go to tr i ali n te n days that the mo t i o n c o mes . ” As a n a l t e r na t i v e t o the S pe e dy 6 Tr i alActfi ndi ngb y the j udg e, the gove r nm en t so ug ht an order settin g B lake’s tri al for a dat e on or before M a r c h 1 2 , 2 0 0 7
. At th e F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 0 7, h e a r i n go n t he govern m en t’s m otion, B lake w aived his ri gh t to a j ury tr i aland conse nted to h i s a tto rney ’ s ( St enger ) pl an to fi l e a seri es o fpr et r i almot i o ns . The di st r i ctc o ur t th us r es ch edul ed th e be nc h t r i alf o r M ar ch2 3, 2 00 7 an d d en ied as m oo t th e gov er n m en t’s m ot ion for sp ee d y t ria l.8 N o. 11

- 3183 O n Feb rua ry 28, 2007, M r . St en ger fi led tw o discov ery mot i o ns a nd t wo mo t i o ns t o suppr e s s e v i de nc e . On M ar ch 1, 20 07, M r. S te n geral so fi l ed a s eal ed m oti on to dism i ss the ind i ctm ent. On M a r c h 5 , 2 0 0 7, a he a r i ng wa s c o nd uc t e d o n these d efe n se m ot ion s d u rin g w h ich th e jud ge ru l ed (an d in whi cho r derthe g o ve r nm en t ac quiesce d) tha t an y evi dence suppli ed by Blak e in hi s pro fferto l aw enf or cem ent a gents duri ng the ti m e he w as re pr es en ted by M r. Fabbr i was t o b e excl ud ed at tr i aland not othe rwis e used aga i nst hi m . H owever, the Court refu se d to bar the t e s t i mon y o fBl a k e ’ s c o - de fe nd a nto r t o e xc l ud e an y statem en ts m ad e by B lake p riorto M r. Fabbri’s appearance i n the case . O n M ar ch 20, 20 07, M r. S tenge r m ove d to contin u e th e M ar ch 23r d tri alto al l ow ti m e t o re vi ew wh at he descr ibed as vol u m i nous di sco ver y, o n w hi ch m oti on the j ud ge s et a hea ring f orM ar ch 23, 20 07. Two da y s pr i o r t o tha t he ar i ng, o n Mar ch2 1, 2 00 7, the gov er n m en t fi l ed a s upersedi ng i nd i ctm ent a gainst Blak e a dd i ng two nar cot i cs- re l ate d offenses . A t the M arch 23r d hearing o n Defe nd ant’ s m oti on t o co nt i nue the t r i al, B l ak e i nqui r ed ab o utthe i m pac t o fthe superse ding i nd i ctm ent o n hi s t ri aldate. U l tim at ely, Blak e w ound up w i thdrawing hi s conse nt to h is counsel ’ s pre vi ousl y r equeste d conti nua n c e and waive d the Act’ s 3 0- d ay a ll otm ent o fti m e t o prepar e fortr i alo n the tw o new c h ar ges . Bl ake was ar ra i gned on the new charg es and dem anded a j ury t ria l o n al l co unts, re sci nd i ng hi s pri orwaive r ofa j ury. Tri alwas set f or Ma r c h 2 7, 2 0 0 7a n d c o m m en ce d o n th a td a t e , a n d t woN o. 11

- 3183 9

A fter plea d ing gu ilty to an info r m a tion cha rg ing him w ith 7 f ail ure t o fi l e a c ur r e nc y t r a ns a c t i onr e po r t, Mr. F a bbr i w as c onvi c t ed and s en t en c ed t o e i ght ee n m onths ofi nc ar c er at i on f oll ow ed b y two years ofs up er v ise d rele ase , a $40, 000 fine, $ 3 6 , 0 0 0 i n res t i t ut i on, a nd the $ 1 0 0 s pe c i a l a s s e s s m e nt
. As previously n oted, thatcas e was prosec uted by an AU SA a s s i gn e d t o a nd s up e r vi s e d b y the U. S
. At t or ne y f orthe a djoinin g jud icial d istr i ct, the So u the rn D istrict of Ill ino is ha v ing b een “scree ne d off ” from the in v estiga tion into Fab bri’ s condu ctby the D epartm ent ofJ usti ce. days l ate r, o n M ar ch 29, 20 07, the j ury re tu rn ed ver dict s of gu il tyo n a l l c o unt s. On J ul y 1 6, 2 00 7, Bl ak e was s en tence d, and his c on vi cti on a nd se ntence w er e a ffi rm ed b y ou r c ou rtfollow in g h is d ire c t a p p ea l. U nited Sta tes v. Bla ke, 286 F. A p p ’x 337 (7th Cir. 2008). 7 O n July 2 3, 2 00 9, Bl ak e ti m ely fi l ed hi s § 22 55 pe ti ti o n, claim ing tha t his attorn eys w ere i n e ffective, m ore pa rti cul ar l y t h at: ( 1) M r. Fabbr i had a c l earco nfl i ct o f i nt er es t ba se d o n h i s st atus a s a ta rg eto fa n o ng o i ng cr i m i na l i nv es ti g at i o n a nd tha t he a nd the g o ve r nm en t i m proper l y hi d M r. Fabbr i ’ s co nfl i ct o fi nt er estso they coul d c on sp i re to gether to Blak e’ s di sadvantag e; ( 2) M r. S tenge r i m proper l y f ai l ed to m ove f ordi sm i ssa l of th e ch ar g es a g ains t Bl ak e ba se d o n v i o l at i o ns o fthe Speedy Tri alA ct; and ( 3) Bl ake ’ s (tw o) appel l ate counselwere i neffecti ve i n f ai l i ng to ra ise the vi ol ati on of B lak e’s Six th A m en d m en t rig h t t o c ou n se l of h is ch o o singf o l l o wi ngM r . F abbr i ’ s wi th dr awala nd the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s a pp oi ntm en t o fnew counsel

. The di str i ct c ou rt d en ied B lak e’s § 22 55 p et itio n, fin d in g t h at : (1) w h ile10 N o. 11

- 3183 th e f ai l ur e to di sc l o se the co nfl i ctofi nt er es t was “ unf o r tu
na te , ” i t di d no t adv er se l y a ffec t th e o ut co m e o fthe tr i al ; ( 2) se ve ral pre tr i alm oti ons fi l ed by both si des to l l ed th e ti m e l i m i ts o fthe Act, the r eb y e l i m i na ting any b asi s t o assertthatthe Speedy Tri alA ct was viol ated ; an d (3) M r. Fabb ri’ s w ithd raw al as B lake’s att or ney was pro per, gi ven M r. Fabbr i ’ s co nfl i ct o f i nter estan d t h at, wh en gi ven the o pp or tuni ty to w ai ve the c on fl i ct, Bl ake decl i ned to do so ; appel l ate co unsel w as ther ef or e no t in effect i ve i n f ai l i ng to chal l enge M r. Fa b b ri’s w ith d ra w al. On Jul y 2 2, 20 11, Bl ake fi l ed a no ti ce o fappealfro m the t ri alco urt’ s deni alo fhi s § 22 55 peti ti on a nd a re quest f ora Certi fi cate o fA pp eala b i l i ty ( “CO A ”)
. The di str i ct cour t deni ed Bla ke’ s r equest on S eptem ber26 , 20 11. Blake ap p eale d the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fthe CO A to the S e v e nth Ci r c ui t o n Oc t o b e r 3 1 , 2 0 1 1
. On F e b r ua r y 3, 20 12 , we g r an te d Bl ak e’ s r eque st f o r a C O A , di r ec ting counselto address B l ake ’ s cl ai m s o fi neffecti ve ass i sta nce o fc o un s e l a nd h i s c o un s e l s’ h an dl i ngo fh i s s pe e dy tr i alr i ghts.

II
. DI S C US S I ON Blak e’ s a pp ealr ais es thr ee cl ai m s o fi neffecti ve ass i sta nce o fco unsel : fi rs t, the i neffecti ve ass i sta nce o f hi s i ni ti al att or ney ( M r. Fabbr i ) ; next, the in effecti ve ass i sta n c e of his tr i alat torney ( M r. S tenge r) , wh o w as a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n tB l a k e a ft e r Mr
. F a b b r i wi th d r e w; and final l y, the i neffecti ve ass i sta nce of h i s thi rd se t o fa tt o r ne y s ( M es sr s. Bl eg ena nd Br ads tr ade r ) , who re p re se n te d h im on h is d ire c t a p p ea l.N o. 11

- 3183 11 A. LE GA L STAND AR D S GO VER NING I NEFFECT I VE AS S I S T AN C E OF C OU NS E L C L AI MS GEN ERA LL Y Bl ake ’ s § 2 2 5 5 c l a i ms a r e b a s e d o n the S i xth Am e nd

m ent. Rel i efunder thi s s tatute i s a vai l ab le on ly i n extr aor dinar y s itu atio ns, such a s a n er ro r ofco nsti tuti onal orj uri sdic ti onalm agni tude orwh er e a fund am ental d efect ha s occu rred w hich resu lts in a com p lete m is carria ge of j u st ice
. P rew i t t v . U nited Sta tes , 83 F. 3d 812, 81 6 (7t h C ir. 19 96 ); B a rnic k el v . U nited Sta tes , 11 3 F
. 3d 704, 70 5 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97)
. The S i xth A m endm en t to the Consti tuti on provi des that“[ i ]n allcr i m i nal pro secuti ons, the accused shal l enj oy the ri ght .

. . to have the A ssi sta nce o fCounsel for h is d efe n c e.” U .S. C O NST . a m end. VI
. Thi s r i ght t o ass i sta nce of counsel encom passes the ri ght to effecti ve as sis ta n c e o f co u n s el. Watson v. Ang li n , 56 0 F
. 3d 687, 690 (7th Cir. 2009) (ci tations om itted ). A party a sse rt i ng i neffecti ve assi sta nce o fco unsel bear s the bur den ofes tabl i shi ng two el em ents: ( 1) that his tr i alc o uns el ’ s per f o r m an ce fel l b el o w obj ec ti ve s ta ndards f or re aso nabl y effecti ve re prese ntati on, and ( 2) that c ou n se l’s d efic ien c y p rej u d ice d th e d efe n s e. St r i ck l and v. Was hi ngt on , 466 U .S. 66 8 , 6 8 7

- 88 (19 84 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Jo nes , 6 3 5 F .3d 90 9, 91 5 (7 th C ir. 20 11 ); W yat tv. U nited Sta tes , 574 F.3d 455 , 457 (7th C ir. 2009). To s a t i s fy the fi r s te l e men to fthe Strickl andte st, appell ant m ust di re ct the Cou rtto speci fi c ac ts oro m i ssio n s b y h is c ou n se l. W yatt, 574 F
. 3d at 458 ( ci tat i on om it t ed ). In th at co n te x t, th e C ou rtco n sid er s w h et h er in l i ght o fal l the ci rcum st an c es counsel ’ s per f or m ance was12 N o. 11

- 3183

o ut si de th e wi de r an g e o fpr ofessi o na l l y c o m pet en t as sis ta n c e. Id. Th e C ou rt’s assessm en t of cou ns el’ s p erform an ce i s “h i g hl y de fer en ti al [ , ]
. . . indul g [ i ng ] a s tr o ng pr es um p ti o n tha t co uns el ’ s co nduc t f al l s wi th i n the w id e ra n ge of re as on ab le p ro fes sio n al a ss ist an c e . . . .” St r i ckla nd, 466 U .S. at 6 89 ; accord W yatt, 574 F
. 3d at 458. Fu rt h er , cou n se l’s p e r f o rm an c e is to be ev alu at ed in l i ght o fthe disc re ti on pro perl y a ccor ded an attorne y t o d e v e l o p a p p r o p r i a t e t r i a l s t r a t e g i e s a c c o r d i n gt o the att or ney’ s ind epe n dent j ud gm ent, gi ven the f acts o f th e c as e, at lea st so m e o f w h ich m ay n otb e r efle c te d in th e t ria l rec or d

. See St r i ck l and, 46 6 U.S
. at68 9- 690. C ourt s ar e admoni sh ed no t to beco m e “Monda y mor ni ng quarte rba ck[ s] ” in eva l uati ng co unsel ’ s per for m ance. Ha rris v. R eed, 894 F.2d 871 , 877 (7th C ir. 1990). To s a t i s fy the s e c o nd S t r i c k l a nd element, a ppel l an t m us t sh o w tha t th er e i s a r ea sonabl e pr o babi l i tytha t, b ut for co u n se l’s e rro rs , th e re su lt of t h e p ro c ee d in gs w ou ld ha ve bee n d if ferent, such thatthe p roceed ings w ere fu n d am en ta lly u n f air or u n re liab le. Jo nes , 63 5 F
. 3d at 915 (c ita tio n s o m i tt ed ); Adam s v. Be r t r and, 45 3 F
. 3d 428, 43 5 ( 7th Ci r. 2 006)
. “A rea sonab l e pr obab i l i ty i s defi ned as one that i s su ffi ci ent t o und er m i ne co nfi dence i n an outco m e. ” A d a ms , 45 3 F
. 3d at 435 ( ci ti ng St rick la nd, 46 6 U
. S. at 694). A n appell ate court re vi ew s a di str i ct c ourt ’ s deni alo f a § 22 55 pe ti ti o n deno vo as to iss u es of law

. Ga l b r a i t h v
. U n i t e d S t a tes , 3 13 F
. 3d 10 01 , 1 00 6 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 2) ( ci ting Teza kv. U nited Sta tes , 2 5 6 F. 3d 702, 712 (7th Cir. 2001)). Fa c tu al fin d in gs are rev iew ed for c lea r er ro r. Id. BecauseN o. 11

- 3183 13 the di str i ct c ourther e d en ied Bl ake ’ s § 22 55 peti ti on w i thout conducti ng an evi denti ar y hea ring, Bl ake conte nd s ( w i th out ci tat i on t o any c ontr ol l i ng autho ri ty) that hi s cl ai m s s houl d be r evi ew ed fo r an abuse o fdi scr et i o n. W e do no t r eg ar d tha t as a c o r r ec t st at ement of l aw , so w e sha llap p ly th e clear error/deno vo pri nci ple s o fr evi ew r efer enced abo ve.

B . I NE F F E C T I VE AS S I S T ANC E B AS E D UP ON ATTORNE Y FAB B RI ’ S CONFL I CT OF I NTE RES T Bl a k e c o nt e nd s th a the was de pr i v e d o fhi s S i xth Am e nd

m en t r i g htt o e ffec ti ve a ss i st an ce o fc ou ns el due t o the confl i ct o fi nt er esto fhi s ini ti alat torney, M r. Fabbr i, wh o, h e m ain ta in s, w as i n c ah oo ts w ith th e g ov er n m en t in an eff o r t to g ain an adv an ta g e i n hi s ow n pro se cut i o n, rath er th an to ad van ce only B lake’s interest s. O ur c ou rt he l d i n Sp reitzer v . P eters , 114 F. 3d 1435 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97) that th e i ss ue o fwhethe r a n a tt o r ne y has e ng ag ed i n a confl i ct of i nter est i n re prese nti ng hi s cl i ent invol ves both questi ons ofl aw and off act. Id. at14 50 . Th u s, w e a p p ly a deno vo st an d ar d o frev iew
. E no ch v. G ram ley, 70 F. 3d 14 90 , 14 9 6 ( 7 th C ir. 19 95 ) (cit at ion om itt ed ), cert. denied , 519 U
. S. 829 (1996). The Si xth A m endm ent r i ght t o effecti ve ass i sta nce o f counselenco m passes “a co rr el ati ve rig h t t o re prese ntati on that i s fr ee f ro m confl i cts ofi nter est
. ” Wood v. Georgia , 450 U
. S. 26 1, 27 1 (19 81 ) ( ci ti ng Cuyl e rv. Su l l i van , 44 6 U .S. 33 5 (1 98 0); H ol l oway v. Arkans as , 4 35 U
. S. 47 5, 48 1 (19 78 )); a cco rd U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ci r r i nc i one, 78 0 F
. 2d 620, 62 414 N o. 11

- 3183 ( 7th Ci r. 1985 ) ( ci tat i ons om i tte d). I t i s wel l se ttl ed that “[ c] ri m i nal defendants ar e guarant eed effecti ve ass i sta nce o f c ou n sel, and have the r i ght t o re prese ntati o n fr ee fr o m c o nfl i cto fi nt erest, at a l l s ta g es o fthe proce edi ngs ag ainst them

. ” U nite d State s v. Lafuente, 426 F. 3d 894, 89 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( ci ti ng Ha ll v. U nited Sta tes , 371 F.3d 969 , 973 (7th C ir. 2004)). Tw o f ra m ew orks exi st f oranal yzing i neffecti ve ass i sta nce of counsel cl ai m s base d o n a c onfl i ct o fi nter est by defe nse c ounsel

. One fra m ew or k a pp l i es i fdefense c ounsell abor ed und eran “ actual ” co nfl i ct o fi nter est
. See C uy ler, 446 U .S . 335. In su ch a case, “[ i] f th ere i s a ny ‘ adv erse effect’ o n the att or ney’ s per f or m ance, pr ej udi ce i s p resu m ed an d the de fen dan t’ s ar g um en t preva i l s. ” Freem a n v . Ch a nd ler, 645 F.3d 863 , 869 (7th C ir. 2011 ) ( ci ti ng Hall , 37 1 F
. 3d at 973)
. Thi s s tandard, as se t for th inC uy ler, appli es “i fthe de fen se co unsel was f aced w i th a choi ce b etween advanci ng h is ow n i nter est s above thos e of h is c li ent. ” Hall , 37 1 F
. 3d at 973 ( ci ti ng St oi a v. U nited Sta tes , 22 F. 3d 766, 771 (7th Cir
. 19 94) )
. A peti ti oner m ay show an adver se effect by dem onstra ting “that th ere is a reason able li keli hood that his coun sel’s p erfor m ance woul d have be en di ffer ent had there bee n no co nfl i ct o fi nter est
. ” Hall , 37 1 F
. 3d at 974. U nd er the sec ond a na lyti cal fram ew ork w he re there ha s be enno “ ac tu al ” co nfl i cto fi nt er es t al l eg ed o r s ho wn, a p et itio n er m u st es ta b lish th at th e c on f lict res u lte d in inef fec ti ve a ss i st an ce a cc o r di ngt o the f ami l i ara nd more dem anding St r i ck l and sta nd ar d, w here by the pet itio ner m u st d em on st ra te “t h at co u n se l’s re p re s e n ta tio n fellN o. 11

- 3183 15

I n m ovi ng t o withdra w, M r. Fabbr i appar en t l y d id no t 8 perso na ll y be l i eve he ha d an ac t ual c onfl i c tofi nt er es t, but c onc ede d thatthe re was i n h i s c ont i nue d re pre s en t atio n o f Bl ake anapp ear an ce ofa c onfl i c t
. M r. Fa bbri s t at ed a tthe heari ng, in Blake’ s pre se n ce : “I beli eve thatthe re i s a potenti al for the id ea th at the re co u ld b e an u nd erstan d ing b y m y client, ri ghtor wron g, thatthe re i s anappe ar anc e tha t I m ay ac tor r e a c t or gi v e a d v i c e i n c o n fi d e n c e t o a c l i e n tb a s e d o n my s i t ua t i on . I do n’ tbe l i e ve tha t ’ s t r ue . I do n’ tc on s c i ou s l y be l i e ve I c oul d do that

. . . . Butthe f ac ti s i t ’ s no twhatI do, i t ’ s the app earance ofw hat I do or d on’ t do. ” A-78. be l o w an o bj ec ti ve l y r easonab l e st an dar d o fc ar e, a nd th at t here i s a r eas onabl e pr obab i l i ty that but f or c ou n se l’s u n p r o f es sio n al e rro rs th e t ria l ou tc om e w ou ld have been differ ent. ” Fre e m an , 6 45 F. 3d at8 69 ( ci ting St r i ck l and, 466 U
. S. at 687, 694). The g o v e r n me n ta r g u e s h e r e th a tMr
. F a b b r i ’ s c o nfl i ctwas not an a ctua l c o nfl i cto fi nt er es t, b as ed o n the pr ec au ti o ns t ak eni n “ sc r een i ngo ff” AU S A K i l l i ana nd th e o therS outher n Dis tr i ct o fI l l i noi s pro secuto rs fro m M r. Fabbr i ’ s pro secu tio n. Thus, ther e i s no ev i dence 8 th a tMr
. F a b b r i ’ s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o fB l a k e w a s i n c o mpatibl e with, o r i nfl uenced by, the i nves ti gat i on i nto M r. Fabbri’s ow n su sp ecte d crim inal con d uc t. Fu rthe r, ther e is no evi dence, acc or ding to the g ove rnm ent, es tabl i s hingtha tMr
. F a b b r i wa s a wa r e tha tAUS A Ki l l i an w as a p ot en tia l w i t n es s in th e p ro se c u tio n ag ain st h im (Fabbri), w hich de feats B la k e’s argum en t tha t M r. Fabbri ha d an ince nt ive to “curry fa v o r ” w ith th e South ern Dist ri ct o fI l l i noi s AU SAs. The di str i ct c ourtsi de st epped16 N o. 11

- 3183

A

- 11. 9 As not ed above , i n i t s m ot i on s ee ki ng a determ ina t i on 10 re gar di ng the e xt en tof M r. F abbr i ’ s c onfl i c t, the gove rn m en t st ated i t “bel ie ve[d] thatAttorney Fabb ri has an a ctual, or at l ea s t a sign i fi c antpot en t i al c onfl i c tofi nt er es ti n r epr es en t i ng B y ro n Bl ake

. ” Re s ponde nt
- Appel l ee ’ s App’ x at1. W e do no t view thats tat em ent as a conce ssi o n by the governm ent that an a ct ual c onfl i c te xi s t ed. W e have pr evi ous l y he l d thatin c as es i n whi c h a defen dantas s er t s thatani nve s t i gat i on i nto the cri m inal act ivities o fhis counsel cr eate s a confli ctbetween the defen dant ’ s i nt er es t in eff ec t i ve re pre s en t at i on and the at t or ne y’ s i nt er es ti n prot ec t i ng hi m s el ff ro m the i nve s t i gat i on, an actual confli cta rise s “only w here ther e i s a dang er that [ c ouns el ] woul d i ne ff ec t i vel y r epr es en t h is c l i en tbe c aus e of fe a r th a t a u th o r i t i e s m i g h t b e c o m e a w a r e o f t h e a t t o r n e y ’s o w n m isc o n d u ct if h e u n d er to o k effe ct iv e r ep re se n ta tio n .’ ” Uni t e d St a t e s v. Balz a no , 916 F. 2d 1273, 1293 ( 7th Cir

. 1990)
. H ere, the crim ina l activ ity fo r w hich M r. Fab b ri w as b eing inv estig ated w a s fully kn ow n to the g ov ern m en t an d w ho lly (c on tin u ed

... ) thi s i ssue ofwh etherM r. Fab b ri p oss ess ed an ac tualo r potenti al c onfl i ct, fi nd i ng i t “ besi de the poi nt, ” be cause B lak e h ad en t ire ly fa iled to es ta b lish eit h er th at h is defe nse was prej ud i ced orthatM r. F abbr i ’ s per f or m ance w as advers el y a ffecte d by the co nfl i ct o fi nter est
. 9

1. Actual Confl i ct W e are not p ersu ad ed , based on t he eviden ce before us, thatM r. Fabbr i poss ess ed an ac tualco nfl i ct o fi nter est dur i ngthe t wo months he rep r es en te d Bl ak e, b ut 10N o. 11

- 3183 17

(
. . . c o ntinu e d) u n r e l a t e d to th e c h a r g e s a g a i n st B l a k e . L i k e w i se , M r . F a b b r i ’s cas e w as being invest igat ed b y a s eparate U
. S. Attorney’ s of fic e u nd er th e d irectio n o f the D ep artm en t of J u st i c e . T hu s, M r. Fab b ri w o u l d h a v e ha d no b asis on w hich to fear tha t in rep resent i ng Bl ake i n a c as e bei ng pr os ec ut ed wi thi n the Southern D is tr ic t ofIl li nois he wo uld p rovide the U. S. Attorne y’ s offi c e i n the Ce nt ra l Dis t ri c taddi t i ona l ev id en c e about his ow n m iscon d u ct, or tha t he w as som eh ow i n c en ted to pu ll pun ches i n Blake’ s defe nse. w e co ncede thatthe appearance o fa c on fl i ct o fi nter est w as ind eed stron g. E ven if th ere w ere a soun d eviden tiary basi s o n w hic h to ba se a fi nd i ng o fan a ctualco nfl i ct, Blak e has fai l ed to est abl i sh that M r. Fabbr i ’ s per f or m ance on hi s be hal fwas adver sel y a ffecte d b y vi rtue of i t, thati s, th at M r. Fa b b ri’s p er for m an c e o fh is d u tie s o n be h alf o fBl ak e woul d ha ve b ee n di ffer en t, ha d the r e be enno confl i ct. I n hi s a ttem p t to m ake the re quis i te showing und er C uy ler, Blake ar g u e s t ha t M r. Fabbri w as trying to cu rry f avo r w i th the go ver n m en t both w hen Fabbr i advi sed Blak e t o provi d e a p ro ffer( eve n bef or e he ( Fabbr i ) had re vi ew ed al l o fthe disc ove ryi n the case ) an d al so when F ab br i fi l ed th e Dec em be r 1 5, 2 00 6 m o ti o n t o c o nti nue . Bl a k e mai nt a i ns tha t ha d M r . F a b b r i no tbee n c o n fl i c t e d , h e woul d h a v e a c t e d o th e r wi s e o n th o s e t wo oc c as i ons. There i s s i m plyno evi dence to support these conte nti ons, however, and Bla ke’s assum pti ons cannot su p p o r tt h e w eig h t o f th e c laim s h e a d va n c es in t h is r e g a r d.18 N o. 11

- 3183 The f act that M r. Fabbri a llowed or encour age d Blak e to make a pr o fferpr i o r t o hi s r ev i ew o fthe g o ve r nm ent’ s di sco ver y doe s no t, sta nd i ng al one, ra i se a r ed fl ag sugge sti ve ofa confl i ct o fi nter est
. I t i s no t unusual f or Defen dan ts t o s ee ka s tr at eg i c adv an ta g e i n pr osec ut i o ns aga i nst them byvo l untari l y pr ovidi ng ea rl y pr offer s, par ti cul ar l y i n ca se s l i k e thi s o ne whi chi nv o l ve c o - defen dants. A ny sug ges ti on byB lak e that M r. Fabbr i had an ult er i orm oti ve in advi si ng hi m to m ake a profferto th e govern m en t is bas ed on not hin g m ore tha n B lake’s supp osi ti ons. Sim il arly, no facts h ave b e en ad d uc ed to sup p ort Blak e’s al l ega ti on that the r eas on M r. Fabbr i so ught a co nt i nua nc e o n Dec embe r 15 , 20 06 was be cause he b elie ve d t h e g ov er n m en t w an te d h im to d o s o or w ou ld b e in c lin ed to vie w su c h a m an eu ve r fav or ab ly. In h is mo t i o n r e q u e s t i n gth e c o n t i n u a n c e , Mr
. F a b b r i c i t e d t he need f orm or e t i m e t o re vi ew the disc overy a n d repr esente d tha t he had dis cussed with Blak e the i m pact o f re q u es tin g a d d itio n al t im e. B lak e is lefton ly w ith h is own specula tio ns i n ar gui ng tha t the r eas on s tat ed byM r . F ab br i f o r r eque st i ngthe c o nt inu an ce wa s di sing en uo us . Nori s th er e an y e vi den ce tha t th e g o ve r nm en t either w an ted or w ished th a t M r . Fabb ri woul d fi l e s u c h a mo t i o n . At th a t e a r l y p o i n t i n the pr o ce eding s—w he n n o mor e th an twenty - f o urno nexcl ud abl e days had pass ed u n der the S peedy Tri alA ct – th e g o ve r nm en t co ul d e as i l y ha ve a sk ed f o r the c o nt i nuance i tse l f, i fi t cho se to do so

. I n sh ort, th e r e i s no evid en ce to su p p ort Blake’s asse rti on that M r. Fabbr i “p u lled h i s punches” o r acte d out o fN o. 11

- 3183 19

Blake als o argues that he is ent it le d to the autom ati c r evers al 11 ofhis convict ion or a rem and f or an evidenti ary heari ng un der H ol l ow ay v. A rkansa s , 43 5 U. S. 47 5, 48 4- 91 ( 19 78 ), b ecaus e the d i st r i c tc o u r tk n e w o r sh o u l d h a v e k n o w n a b o u tM r . F a b b r i ’s co n flic t of in te re st an d fa ile d to a d eq u a te ly a d d r e s s i t. S ee H ol l eman v. C ot t on , 301 F. 3d 737, 742 ( 7th Cir . 2 002) ( “U nd er H ol l ow ay a nd C u yle r, a t ri al court has the d u ty t o inquir e a de q u a t e l y i n t o a t r i a l c o u n s e l ’ s c o n fl i c to fi n t e r e s ti fi tk n o ws o r r ea so n a b ly sh o u ld k n o w th a t a p a rt ic u la r c o n flic t e xi sts .” ). H o w e v e r , w e h a v e r e c o g n i z e d th a t“ [ s ] u b s e q u e n tS u p r e me Co urt deci si ons have lim ite d the H ol l ow ay holding to s ituat i ons i n whi c h the di s t ri c tc our tr equir es j oi ntr epr es en t at i on over a ti m el y ob j ect ion. ” L afu en te, 42 6 F
. 3d a t89 7 ( c i t i ng M i cke ns v. Tayl or, 535 U.S
. 162, 168- 69 ( 2002) ; C u yle r, 44 6 U .S. a t 3 4 6 ). I n Bl ake ’ s c ase , M r. Fa bbri ’ s c onfl i c tdi d notar i s e f ro m j oi nt repres entat ion. A nd , i n any event, even as sum ing the H ol l ow ay s t anda rd a ppl i ed h er e, Bl ake ha s f ai l ed t o s how tha t the dist ri ctcourt f ail ed to adequately i nvesti gate a confli ct itknew orr e a s on a bl y s ho ul d h a ve k no wn e x i s t e d. Bl ake ’ s m i s pl ac ed r el i anc e on H ol l ow ay is an o u tgr ow th of his as s er t i on thatthe t ri al j udge had a c t ual kno wle dge of M r. Fabb ri ’ s confli ctofi nter es t as earl y as w hen M r. Fabb ri (c on tin u ed

... ) “a fea r o fr et al i at i o n” b y the g o ve r nm en t dur i ngthe t i me he wa s Bl a k e ’ s c o un s e l a nd no thing i n the r eco rd , bas ed on ou r ow n r eview , gi ves rise to such an inferen ce. To the exte nt that Blake c o n t en d s tha t M r. Fabbri w as i ncen te d t o coo perat e with the gov er nm ent o r that he a ct ed i n a manne r he woul d not oth er wi se ha ve do ne to the de tr i m en t o f B lake’s i nt er es ts , the r e si m pl y i s no evi dence to support such ar gum ents. 1120 N o. 11

- 3183

(
. . . c o ntinu e d) fi rst e nter ed h i s appe ar anc e on Oct obe r 30 , 20 06 , bas ed o n a pri or i ns t a nc e i n a no the r c a s e be f or e tha t j udg e whe re a si m i l a r c ha r ge h a d b e e n l e ve l e d a ga i ns tMr. F a bbr i
. Howe ve r, the m os ttha tc a n be s a i d i n t e r m s o f the t r i a l j udg e ’ s i nd e pe nd

en t, pr i or kno wle dge ofM r. Fa bbri ’ s pos s ibl e c onflic tof i nt e r e s twa s tha tthe pr i ors i t ua t i onpe r ha ps s ho ul d h a ve ra i s ed a s us pi c i on i n the j udge’ s m i nd that M r. Fabb ri m ight have a c onfl i c tofi nt er es ti n B lak e’s c as e. Su c h a s us pi c i on bas ed o n an a rguabl y s i m i l ar i ns t anc e ofan othe r c l ai m of confli ctofi nter es t agai nstM r. Fabb ri ei ght m onths earl ie r cannot f air ly be reg a rd ed a s noti ce to the j ud ge ofthe confli ct sufficient to req u ire him to tak e som e ac tion to ad d ress it, par t i c ul ar l y gi venthatthe pr i or i ns t anc e was r es ol ved wi thout th e ju d g e e v e r h a v i n g to a d ju d i c a t e th e is su e a n d M r . F a b b r i ’s c ont i nue d i nvol vem en tas the defen s e c ouns el thr ougho ut t he e n t i r e p r o c e e di n g s . W e h o l d wi th l i t t l e di ffi c u l t y th a tt he t r i a l ju d g e h e r e d i d n o th a v e k n o w l e d g e t h a t M r . F a b b r i ’s re pre s en t at i on pos ed a ny po t en t i al or a ctu al c onfl i c tof interes tpr i or t o the gove rn m en t ’ s fi l i ng o fi t s no t i c e in Bl ak e’s c ase , an d onc e appr i s ed o fthe pot en t i al c onfl i c t, the tri a l jud g e inq u ired in tim ely f ash ion
. N oth ing ab ou t this s er i es of eve nt s i ndi c at es that the t ri al j udge ac t ed ina ppro priat ely o r with dil atori ness i n res pon ding to the all eged con fli ct of interest o nc e he ha d kn ow led g e of it. 2. Pote nti al Confl i ct N orhas Blak e s ati sfi ed the m or e dem anding Strickland stan d a rd s. U nd er St r i ck l and, we need not dw el l o n w hetherthe quali ty ofM r. Fabbr i ’s repre senta ti on was l acking wh en m easu re d against a n obj ecti vel y r easo n ab le s ta n d a r d of ca re . In st ea d , w e s h all go d ire c tlyN o. 11

- 3183 21 to the i ssue ofwh etherther e was an y p rej ud i ce s uffer ed byBl ak e ba se d o n Mr. F ab br i ’ s per f o r m an ce . I n doi ng so , w e loo k t o d et er m in e w h et h er th er e is a “r ea so n ab le probabi l i ty that, but f orco unsel ’s unp ro fess i onaler ro rs , the r esul t o fthe [ tr i al ] would have been differ ent. ” U nited St at e s v. A llen , 3 90 F
. 3d 94 4, 9 51 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4) ( quo ting H ough v. Ande rs on , 2 72 F
. 3d 87 8, 8 91 ( 7th Ci r . 2 001)). A gai n, aftercar eful re vi ew , we fi nd no fi nd no basi s o n wh i c h t o c o n c l u d e th a t, b u tf o r th e c o n fl i c t, th e o u t c o me ofBl ake ’ s t ri alwould have been differ ent. B lak e a tt em p ts to es ta b lis h p r eju d ice ba se d on h is ha vingpr o vi ded a pr o ffert o the g o ve r nm en t dur i ng the t i me M r . F a b b r i s e r v e d a s h i s c o un s e l

. We ha v e a ddr ess ed these f acts pre vi ousl y in thi s o pini on. Because the di str i ct c ourtbar re d any use of the ev i dence su p p lied by B l a k e i n h is p ro ffer for a n y p u rp os e a t t ria l, an y p ot en tia l p rej u d ice f r om th e p ro ffer w as en tir ely null i fi ed. Bl ake has not conte nd ed that hi s pro fferwas hand l ed in a proce du ra l l y unusual o r prej ud i ci alway by the g ove rnm ent c ausi ng hi m so m e un fair ness that w as no t cu red b y t h e ju d ge’s orde r i n li m ine. Fu rthe r, Bl ak e ha s no t ar g ue d th at hi s par ti ci pat i o n i n the p r o ff er session in an d of itselfcau sed him som e form o funs pec i fi ed pr ej udi ce . Acco r di ng l y, w e fi nd no e vi den

ti ar y s up portfor Bl ake ’ s a sse rt i on that hi s par ti ci pati on i n the profferse ssi on prej ud i ced hi m i n hi s defense o r cha ng ed the ou tcom e of an y proc eed ing or, i n p artic u lar , his tria l. The onl y o therprej ud i ce c l ai m ed by Blak e was that the b el ate d discl os u re o fhi s a tto rney ’ s pot enti alco nfl i ct22 N o. 11

- 3183

c au se d a d ela y in h is t ria l. A ss u m in g s u c h a d ela y, it is ofno l ega l co nsequence be cause Blak e’ s o nl y en titl em ent t o a par ti cul artr i ald at e is hi s s tatutor y r i ght t o a t r i a l wi th i n 7 0 n o n - e x c l u d a b l e d a y s u n d e r th e S pe e dy T ri al A ct. W hen that re quir em ent i s sat i sfi ed, ther e is n o ot h er ba sis on w h ic h t o fin d an y leg ally co gn iza b le p r ej u d i c e . F u r th e r, a s w e a d d r e s s b e l o w i n a mor e c o mpr e he ns i v e f a s hi o n, Bl a k e ’ s r i g ht s u nd e r the S pe e dy T ria l A c t w er e n otvio lat ed

. I t dese rv es to be note d a s wel l thatwh ate verpro cedural del ay s di d o cc urr es ul te d a l m o ste nt i r ely fr o m mot i o ns fi l ed on Bl ake ’ s be hal fand f orhi s b en efi t, al l ( w i th th e ex ce pti o n o fthe De ce m be r 15, 200 6 m o ti o n t o c o nti n u e ) wi th o u t o b j e c t i o n f r o m h i m. Whi l e i t ma y b e t r ue that pretr i alac tiv i ti es did notpro ceed ata pace f ast enough t o sui t B lak e, ther e has bee n no s how i ng o f any pr ej ud i ce t o h is defense base d on thi s t i m etabl e. N o defe nd ant i s en tit l ed by l aw to any parti cul artr i al d at e, so l ong as the S peedy Tri alA ct r equi re m ents h av e b ee n m et
. N o r do we cre di t Bl ak e’ s at te nua te d the o r y tha t he w as prej ud i ced by M r. Fab b ri ’ s be l ate d discl osur e o f hi s co nfl i ct o fi nter est, since the del ay al l owed the gov er nm ent a dd i ti onalti m e a nd o pp or tuni ty to secur e a superse ding i nd i ctm ent c ontaini ng the two additional fel o ny c ha r g es a g ains t hi m . Aga i n, B lak e’ s ar g um en t i s pure spe c u lat i on be cause ther e i s no ev i dence to i nd i cate thatthe gov er nm ent c oul d not or w oul d not h a v e s e c u r e d th e s u p p l e me n t a l i n d i c t me n ta ts o me ea r l i erpo i nti n t i m e. I n a ny e ven t, we a g r ee wi ththe d ist ric t c ou rt ’s o b se rv at ion t h at be c au se th e c h ar ge s inN o. 11

- 3183 23

A

- 12. 12 both i nd i ctm ents i ncl ud ed a c onspi ra cy to dist ribute a n d p o s s e s s w i th i n t e n tt o di s t r ib u t e i n e x c e s s o f5 0 g r a ms ofcr ack coca i ne, wh etherthe t rial had occ urr ed on J anuary9, 20 07 orM ar ch 27, 20 07, the evi dence ag ai nst B lake w ou ld h ave be en the sam e. Th us , M r. Fabbri’s 12 tw o m onth del ay i n re sol vi ng hi s confl i ct o fi nter est did notr esul t in any prej ud i ce t o Blak e’ s defense. C learly , t he crim inal inv estigation aga inst M r. Fabbri and his f ailur e to infor m Bl ake o fi t a t the ti m e Bl ake r et aine d hi m was a t th e ve r y l ea stpr o bl emat i c, a nd perhaps l acking i n ter m s o fprop er p ro fess i onalprac ti ce sta nd ar ds. I t was al so, as the tr i alj ud ge chara cter i zed i t, “unf or tunate. ” How eve r, we fi nd no gr ou nd s upon w hi ch t o concl ud e that M r. Fabbr i ’ s per f or m ance o n behal f of Blak e w as advers el y affecte d b y hi s c onfl i ct o fi nt e r e s to r tha tBl a k e ’ s de fe ns e wa s p r ej ud i c e d, pu rs uant to the St r i ck l andst an d ar d s, as a re su lt o fth is co nfl i c t
. Ac c o r ding ly, Bl ake ’ s cl ai m o fi neffecti ve ass i sta nce o fc o u n s e l c l a i m b y Mr
. F a b b r i i s u n a v a i l i n g, a n d we affir m the denia l o fhi s § 22 55 m oti on o n thi s ba si s by the t ri alco urt.

C. I NEF FE CT I VE ASSI ST ANCE C L AI M AGAI NST ATTO RN EY STENG ER B lake cl ai m s that hi s r epl acem ent t ri alat torney, M r. St enger, w ho w as appoint ed by the court to re prese nt hi m w hen M r. Fa bbr i withdrew, was i neffecti ve base d on hi s ( St enger ’ s) f ai l ure to m ove24 N o. 11

- 3183 f ordi sm i ssa l o fthe i nd ict m ent b ase d on vi ol ati ons of th e S pee dy Tr i alAct
. The Actpr o vi des tha t a defendant m ust g o to tr i al w ithi n 70 days o fei therthe date o f the i s s ua nc e o fa n i nd i c t men to r a de fe nd a nt ’ s fi r s ta pp earan ce before a j ud ici al offi cer, w hich ever is la t er. 18 U
. S. C . § 3161( c) ( 1)
. I fa defe nd ant i s no t br ought to trial w i th that70

- day window , the i nd i ctm ent a gainst th e d efend an t m us t be d ism issed up on th e d efend an t’s m o ti o n. § 3 16 2( a) ( 2)
. Di smi ss al m ay be wi tho r wi th o ut p rej u d ice
. Id. The r e i s a se r i es o fs ta tu to r i l y pe r m i tt ed ex cl us i o ns f r o m the r unning of the 7 0- dayc l o ckwhi chr efl ec t Con

g r e s s ’ s u nd e r s t a nd i ngtha ta c e r tai n a mou nto fs c he dul i ng fl e xib i l i t y i s r e qu i r e d b y the c o ur t s i n o r de r to proper l y, f ai rl y, and effi ci ently c onduct and c om ple te p re tr ial p re p ar at ion s. See § 3161 ( h)( 1)- ( 8)
. Per i ods o f ex c l u s i o n i n c l u d e “ [ a ] n y p e r i o d o fd e l a y r e s u l ti ng f r o m o th erpr o ce eding s co nc erni ngthe de fen dan t, i ncl ud i ng but not l i m i ted to

. . . del ay re sul ti ng fro m any pr etr i alm oti on, fro m the fi l in g ofthe m oti on thro ugh the c oncl usi on o fthe hear i ng o n, o r othe r p rom p t d isposition of, s u c h m o tion .
. . . ” § 3161(h )( 1)(D). Du ring the p er iod wh en the ev ents at i ssue here o ccur r ed, t i m e at tr ibut ab l e to the se pu rpo se s was e xcl ud ed, so m e au tom ati cal l y purs uant to the ter m s o f the Act w hen no s how i ng o fa causalco nnecti on between the del ay and the co u rt’ s a ctualco nsi derat i on of p re tr ial m ot ion s is req u ire d

. U ni t e d St at e s v. M ont oya , 82 7 F.2 d 143, 15 0- 51 ( 7th Ci r. 19 87)
. W hetherto gr ant a continuance al ong w i th the r el ate d decis i on( s) o f w he th er to exclu d e pe riod s of d elay un d er the A ct areN o. 11

- 3183 25

BriefofRespon dent- A pp el le e at30
. 13 m att er s e ntrust ed to the sound disc re ti on of the dis tr i ct cour t, and any deci si on m ade does notco nsti tute re ver sibl e e rro r abse nt a showing ofabuse o fdi scr eti on by the c ourtand ofactual prej ud i ce. U nited St at e s v. White, 4 4 3 F
. 3 d 5 8 2 , 5 8 8

- 8 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( c i t i ng U nited State s v. Tayl or, 1 96 F
. 3d 85 4, 8 60 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 9); U nite d State s v. M arin , 7 F. 3d 679, 683 (7th Cir. 1993)). Blak e was ar ra i gned on October 3 0, 2006 and hi s t ri al bega n on M ar ch 27, 20 07. The ti m e that e l apsed bet w een hi s a r r a i g nme nt a nd the s t a r t o f hi s t r i a l, the r e f o r e , accor ding to th e go ve rn m en t’ s ca l cul ati ons, to tal ed 148 days, 85 o fwh i ch w er e e xcl ud abl e under th e Act, lea vin g on ly 6 3 a s n on -e x c lu d ab le d ay s, w h ich , i f p rop erly com p ut ed , i s w ellw ithin the 70 -da y statu tory l i m i t. The go ver nm ent a sse rt s th at o fthe 85 excl ud ed days, 23 ar e a ttr ibutabl e t o the g ove rnm en t, 21 are at
tr ibut ab l e to the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s i ni ti alo r derc o nc erni ng pr et r i al m o ti o ns , an d vi r tu al l y al l o f th e r emai ni ng 41 da y s are att r ibut ab l e to Bl ak e’ s m o ti o ns o r the m ot ion s o f h is c ou n se l filed on h is b eh alf. The g o ve r nm en t submi tt ed as a pa r t o fi ts b r i efi ng on a pp e a l the f o l l o wi ngc ha r t, wh i c h de t a i l s the r e specti ve tim e a l l oca ti ons and com pu tat i ons pu rs uant to pro vi si ons ofthe A ct. T he chart al so conta i ns cr oss - re fer ences to th e recor d, anchor i ng the ti m e ca l cul ati ons to eve nts r epor ted o n the cour t’ s dock et. W e repro du ce th atc ha r t he r e f o r i ts clari ty an d, a s co nfi r m ed byo ur re vi ew , i ts accura cy. 1326 N o. 11

- 3183 T i me P e r i o d S o u r c e Da t e s T i me A rr ai gnm ent t o Tri al R. 9, R. 10 9 10- 30- 06 – 0 3- 27- 06 148 days Pret ri alM oti on Peri od R. 12 10- 30- 06 – 1 1- 20- 06 - 21 days Defe nd ant M oti o n t o Co nt i nue R. 27, R. 28 12- 15- 06 – 1 2- 18- 06 - 4 days
Gov ernm en t M oti on ( Conf. o f In t.) R. 32 , R. 36 12- 20- 06

– 12- 28- 06 - 9 days

Defe nd ant M ot. f orReco ns. o f Bo nd R. 50 , R. 55 ,

R. 57, R. 63 12- 28- 06

–

01- 24- 07 - 27 days

Gov ernm en t Speedy Tri al M oti on R. 69 , R. 71 02- 13- 07

– 02- 26- 07 - 14 days

D efe n d an t V ar io us M o ti o ns R. 80

- 86 02- 28- 07

– 03- 05- 07 - 6 days Defe nd ant M oti o n fo r Co nt i nuance R. 97, R. 10 4 03- 20- 07

– 03- 23- 07 - 4 days

N o nex c lu d ab le t i me 63 days

Blak e di sputes v ar i ous por ti ons ofthi s char t a s w ell as the g ove rnm ent’ s co m pu tat i ons. H owever, havi ng f ai l ed to p resen t any Spee d y Trial A ct claim to th e d istri ct cou rt i n the f o r m o fa mot i on to d ismi ss the i ndi ct m en t, he has wai ved thi s cl ai m . The A ct e xpressl y pr ovi des thatN o. 11

- 3183 27 defe nd ants w ai ve thei r ri ghts und erthe A ct when t h e y d o n o t mo v e t o d i s mi s s th e i n d i c t me n t
. 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 162( a) ( 2) ( “Fa i l ure ofthe defe nd ant t o m ove f ordi sm i ss alpr i o r t o t r i al

. . . s ha l l c o ns ti tu te a w aiver o fthe ri ght t o dism i ssa l under thi s s ecti on. ”)
. A pp ar en tly prepar ed to c o nc ede a wai ve r, Bl ak e resur r ec ts the i ss ue b y b l am in g h is a tt or n ey for h is in effe c tiv en es s in f ai l i ngt o r ai se the S peedyTr i alActv i o l at i o ns b efo r e th e trialcou rt. H ow e v e r , becau se B lake f ail s in his effort he r e t o de mon s t r a t e tha tthe Ac twa s i n f a c tv i o l a t ed, hi s co uns elc anno t be de emed ine ffec ti ve fo r ha ving f ai l ed to fi l e a m oti on t o dism i ss the in d i ctm ent o n that basi s. W e nee d n o t ling er on th e issue of w he th er Blake’s ri ghts und erthe A ct w er e actual l y vi ol ate d. I n f act, r ather than f ocusi n g on the speci fi c ti m e co m pu tat i ons, Bl ake lim its hi s § 22 55 ar gum ents to a g ener al i zed and m ultif ac et ed at ta cko n the g o ve r nm en t’ s al l ege d b ad f ai th

. Blak e a l l ege s ba d fa i th be gi nning w hen A U SA K i l l i an c on sp i re d w i th M r. Fabbr i to fi l e the Decem ber15 , 20 06 m ot i o n fo r c on tin u an c e o f th e t ria l an d th er ea fte r in r et al i at i nga g ains t Bl ak e f o r hi s r es is ta nc e dur i ngthe pr et ri alhear i ng to a continuati on o fhi s t ri aldate by get ti ng M r. Fabbr i r em ove d as defense counseli n or der to secur e a del ay i n Bla ke’ s t ri alther eby al l owing ad d itional cha rges to be fi led aga inst h im i n th e sup ersedi ng i nd i ctm ent. Thus , h e a rgues, beg i nning w i th that firs t m ot ion rais in g M r. Fa b b ri’s co n flict o fint er es t, a se rie s o f ev en ts w as se t in to m ot ion th at u n fair ly d elayed his tri a l an d all ow ed the trial cou rt to disregard28 N o. 11

- 3183

Peti ti oner- A pp el lantBriefat 34
. 14 Si nc e the t i m e ofBl ake ’ s t ri al, the Su pre m e Cour ti n Blo at e v. 15 U n i te d S tat es , 55 9 U .S. 1 9 6 ( 20 10 ) ru led tha t tolled tim e in subm it ti ng a n d p ro ces si ng p re- tr ial m oti ons i s no longer a u to m a tic a lly ex cl u d a b le

. Id. at20 3- 04
. Ho w ever, be c aus e the l aw was c l ea r atthe t i m e of B lak e’ s t ri al thatthe days req u ired to p rep are p retria l m otio ns w ere a u tom atica lly exclu d ab le, M r. Steng er’s p erform an ce in failing to m ov e to di s m i s s the i ndi c t m en tbas ed on thi s par t i c ul ar al l oc at i on of tim e w a s cl ea rl y n o t d efi ci en t. S ee Kn ox v . U n ite d S tat es , 400 F .3d 519 , 52 2 (7th C ir. 20 05 ) (“A f a ilur e to a nticip ate sh ift s (c on tin u ed

... ) hi s ri ghts f ro m the ear l i est poi nt( s) i n th is p rosec uti on f o r war d t o i ts c o nc l us i o n. 14 Despit e Bl ake ’ s s tri ngi ng to gether ofthi s s er i es of proce du ra l o ccurr ences, we d o not fi nd i n them , wh ether consi dered i nd i viduall y o r tog ether, any evi dence of ba d f ai tho r o fc oll us i o n b etwee n the g o ve r nm en t at to rn ey s a n d B lak e’s init ial c ou n se l. T h es e s te p s s im p ly t r a c kthe p r o g r e s s o fthi s p r o s e c ut i o n. Bl a k e ’ s a t t e mpt to a ss i g n b as e m o ti ve s to e ac h phase of the l i ti g at i o n a nd th e resp ective p articipan ts d oes not ad d up . Furth er, o u r r e v i e w o fth e S p e e d y T r i a l A c t c o mp u t a t i o n s c o n fi r ms th e re gu lar ity of th e p ro c es s a n d of th e tria l co u rt ’s c om p lia n c e wi th th e S p e e d y T r i a l Ac t, a s d e t a i l e d b e l o w:

• The P r e t r i a l Mo t i o n Pe r i o d ( the 2 1

- da y s b e t w een October30 , 20 06 and N ove m ber20 , 20 06) was autom at ica lly ex cl ud abl e un d er th e h old in g in M ont oya , 82 7 F
. 2d at 151- 53. 15N o. 11

- 3183 29

(
. . . c o ntinu e d) in leg al d octr ine ca nn ot b e co n d e m ne d as ob jectiv ely d efici en t.” ) (cit a tio n o m itt ed ). • D efe n d a n t ’ s M ot ion to C on tin u e is an ex c lu d ab le pretr i alm oti on, ev en tho ugh Bla ke did n ot conse nt to i ts fi l i ng . I n U nited Sta tes v. G earh a rt, 57 6 F
. 3d 459, 46 3 n. 3 ( 7th Ci r. 2 009), we hel d that under the Act, cou ns el i s not req uir e d t o obtain th e d efend an t’s co ns en t pr i o r t o makinga t ac tical dec i si o n in a ca se , suc h as the deci si o n to se eka co nt i nua nc e. ( The excl ud abl e per i od w as 4 days : 12/ 15 /0 6 t o 1 2/ 18 /0 6.)

• The Govern m ent’ s m oti on s eek i ng a deter m i nati on ofwh etherA tto rneyF ab b ri had a co nfl i ct o f i nter estw as excl ud abl e. A l though the r eco rd r efl ects A U SA K i l l i an’ s hav i ng had l i m i ted kno w l edge th atM r . F ab br i was underi nv es ti g at i o n fr o m the beginn in g of B lake’s prosec ut ion, w he n M r. Fabbri en tered his app earan ce, he w a s n ot aw are of a confl i ct unti l Decem ber18 , 20 06, wh en h e fi rs t l ea rn ed thatan ind i ctm ent a gainst M r. Fabbr i was i m m i nent and that Blak e w anted to proce ed to tr i alwitho ut del ay. A t that p oint, A U SA K i l l i an pr o mpt l y wi thd r e w fr o m the c a s e , a nd r e pl a c em en t AU S As i m m edi at ely fi l ed th e m o ti o n wi ththe co ur t r ai singthe c o nfl i cti ss ue. T he g o ve r nm en t g aine d no i m pr o per a dva nt ag e f r o m thi s del aya nd B lak e has f ai l ed to es tabl i sh thatthi s m oti on was fi l ed i n bad f ai th in a n att em pt to del ay Blak e’ s t ri al30 N o. 11

- 3183

o r c api ta l i ze i n s o m e o th erw ayon th e si tu at i o n. ( The excl ud abl e p er i od w as 9 days , r unning b etween 12 /2 0/ 06 to 12 /2 8/ 06 .)

• Defe nd ant’ s M oti o n f orReco nsi derat i on o fBond w as an o ra l m oti on m ade by Bla ke ’s new co unselupon re pla ci ng M r. Fabbr i
. W e a gr ee w i th o ur s i ste r ci rcui ts that or alm oti ons tol l the cl oc k the sa m e a s w ritten m oti ons f orpurposes o fS peedy Tri alA ct c alc u lat ion s. Se e, e . g. , U nited S ta tes v . B roa dw a ter, 15 1 F.3 d 1 3 5 9 , 1 36 1 (1 1t hC ir. 19 98 ) (p er cu ria m ); U nited Sta tes v. R o driq uez , 63 F. 3d 1159, 1164-65 (1st C ir. 19 9 5 ) (c ita tio n s o m itt ed ); U nited Sta tes v. M o ses , 15 F.3d 774 , 776 n.3 (8th C ir. 1 994) (citati on om itted ); U nited St at e s v. N ixon , 7 79 F
. 2d 12 6, 1 30

- 31 ( 2d Cir. 198 5 ). Thu s, thi s per i od ofexcl usi ons w as 27 days : 12/28/ 06 to 01/24/ 07.

• The Gover nm ent’ s S peedy Tri alM otion w as fi l ed o n 2/13 / 07a nd was r es o l ve d o n 2 /26 / 07
. The excl ud abl e ti m e f or thi s pre tr i alm oti on was 14 days

.
• Defen dan t’ s co uns el fi l ed va r i o us pr et r i al m oti o ns be g i nni ng2 /28 / 07thr o ug h 3/5/ 07, re su l tingi n 6 days ofexcl ud abl e t i m e.

• Defe nd ant fi l ed a m oti on fo r continuance on 3/20/ 07 w hi ch w as pend i ng unti l 3/23/ 07, am ounti ng to a total of 4 e xcl ud able days

. Thu s, i t i s cl earthatthe tal l y of excl ud abl e ti m e co ncl ud ed wi th8 5 day s. The no n- ex clud ab l e ti m e was 6 3 day s. The tot alam ou n t ofti m e co nsum ed bet w een the date of Blak e’ s ind i ctm ent a nd the date o ftr i alwas 148 days.N o. 11

- 3183 31

The par t i es ha ve f oc us ed the i r ar gum en t s s ol el y on 16 w hether counsel w as inef fect ive f or f ail ing t o se ek dism is sal bas ed o n a v i o l a t i o n o f Bl a k e ’ s s t a t u t o r y r i g h t s u n de r t he (c on tin u ed

... ) These cal cul ati ons cl ear l y com plyw i th the 70

- day- to- tr i al re quir em ent in the A ct. Blak e’ s r efer ence to the t ri alj ud ge’ s r efusalto m ake “en d s o f j us tice” fi nd ings in res p ons e t o t he govern m en t’s re quests on thre e occa si ons ( Decem ber28 , 20 06; J anuary9, 200 7; an d Febr uary13 , 20 07) i s a r ed her ring; i n no way do es i t se r ve a s ev i den ce o fthe g o ve r nm en t’ s ba d f ai th

. T h e c o m p u ta tio n s u n d er th e A c t w er e e x c lu d ab le w hethero r not the j ud ge m ad e such a deter m i nati on, as shown abo ve, and i t i s be yond d isp u te that a j ud ge posses ses br oad disc re tio n to m ake the rul i ngs c onsi dered by hi m /he r to be a pp ro pri ate under th e ci rcum sta nces co ns i st entwi ththe Act ’ s pur po se s an d di ct at es . The j ud ge’s refusa l to m ake “end s of j us tice” fi nd ings he re si gnal s nothi ng w i th re gar d t o the gov er nm en t a tto rney s’ bad f ai th o r th e r eas onabl eness and suffi ci ency of M r. S tenge r’ s per f or m ance. A cl ai m o fi neffecti ve ass i st an ce o fco unsel m ust be su p po r te d b y o bj ec ti ve e vi den ce , no t m er ely b y the m ov an t’s ow n se lf-se rv in g t es ti m on y. See C o o per v . U nited Sta tes , 37 8 F
. 3d 638, 64 1- 42 ( 7th C ir. 20 04)
. H er e, we have o nl y Bl ak e’ s se l f

- se r vingclai m s. No v i o l at i o n o fthe Sp ee d y T r i a l A c t o c c u rre d in b rin gin g h is c as e t o t ria l, w hi ch defeat s Blak e’ s cl ai m that hi s counsel w as i neffecti ve i n f ai l i ng to m ove f ordi sm i ssa l o fthe i nd i ctm ent. 1632 N o. 11

- 3183

(
. . . c o ntinu e d) Speedy Trial Act and hav e not pu t forth any cons ti tuti onal ar gum en t s r eg ar di ng whe the r c ouns el was i ne ff ec t i ve f or fa ili n g to invest igat e and p ursue a s peed y tri al cl aim und er the S i x th Am e nd m e nt
. Th i s i s l i ke l y be c a us e a c on s t i t ut i on al speedy t ri al violat ion general ly requir es a show ing of a m u ch longer period of delay to tr igger rel ie f than is at is su e h er e. “Sim ply to t ri gger a [ const itutional ] s peed y tria l a n alys is , an ac c us ed m us tal l eg e thatthe i nt er val b etw een ac c us at i on and t ri al ha s cr osse d the thr es hol d divi di ng o rdi nar y fro m
‘ presum ptivel y prejudici al’ de la y . . . . ” D ogg et t v. U n i te d S tat es , 50 5 U. S. 64 7, 65 1- 52 ( 19 92 ) ( c i t i ng Barke r v. Wi ngo , 407 U.S
. 51 4 , 5 30- 31 ( 1972) )
. As w e have rec ognized, “[ a] s a general m at t e r , c ou r t s h a ve f ou nd de l a ys a ppr oa c hi ng o ne y e a r t o be presum ptivel y prejudici a l.” Wh ite, 44 3 F
. 3d a t58 9- 90 ( c i t i ng U n i te d S tat es v. Ward , 21 1 F
. 3d 3 56 , 36 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00 ) )
. The con stitutio na l righ t attach es on ly after an arr est, an ind ictm en t, o r so m e o th er for m o f offi ci a l a cc u sa tio n . U ni t ed Sta t es v. So uf f r o nt, 33 8 F .3d 80 9 , 83 5 (7t h C ir . 20 0 3 ) (cit a tio n s o m i t t e d ). H er e, Bl ake was i ni t i al l y i ndi c t ed o n O ctob er 19 , 20 06 an d arrai g n ed o n O ct ober 30, 2006. A superseding i nd ic tm ent w as returned on M arch 21, 2007 and B lake’ s tr ial began on M arch 27, 2 0 0 7 . T h e a p p r o x i m a t e l y fi v e m o n th d e l a y b e t w e e n B l a k e ’s i ndi c t m en tan d t ri al i s the re f or e pl ai nl y notwithi n the r ang e of d elay tha t w e ha v e fou nd t o b e lon g eno u g h to w arr an t a m o re i n -d ep th an a ly sis
. C om pare U n ite d S ta te s e x re l. F itz g er a ld v . Jorda n , 7 4 7F
. 2 d 1 1 2 0 , 1 1 2 7( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 8 4 ) ( fi nd i ng a pr e t r i al d el a y o f e ig h t m o n th s p re su m p tiv el y p re ju d ic ia l) w i t h Hogan v. M cBri de, 74 F.3d 1 4 4 , 1 4 5 ( 7th C ir. 19 96 ) (find ing tha t a pretr ia l delay ofapp roxi m atel y eight m onths in a robb ery ca se d id n o t c o n sti tu te p re tr ia l d el a y ).N o. 11

- 3183 33 D . I NEFFECTI VE AS SI STA NCE OF A TTOR NEYS BL EGEN A ND B RA ND STRA D ER Blak e’ s fi nal § 2255 c l ai m i s that hi s a tto rney s o n dir ect appeal, M ess rs . Bl ege n and Brandstra der, w er e ineffecti ve i n f ai l i ng to r ai se on a pp ealthe depriva tio n ofhi s S i xth A m endm ent r i ght t o counselo f h is ow n choo si ng, bas ed on the di str i ct j ud ge ’s all owance ofM r. Fabbr i ’ s m oti on to w ith d ra w w ith ou t firs t d et er m in in g w h et h er d isq u alificati on was w ar ra nted and w i thout provi ding Blak e an opp ortu nity to w aive any co n fl ict of interest Fabbri m ight ha ve h ad

. I n circu m stan ces su ch a s t h ese, w he re an i ne ffective ass istanc e claim is base d on an attorn ey’s f ai l ure to ra i se a vi abl e i ssue on appeal, “w e m u st fi rs t anal yze the tr i alc ou rtr eco rd to deter m i ne wh ether [ the defendant’s ] appel l ate at torney, i n f act, i gnor ed

‘ si gni fi can t and obvi ous’ i ssues . ” Su gg s v. U nited Sta tes , 513 F. 3d 675, 67 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( quoti ng Grayv. G reer, 800 F.2d 644, 646 (7th Cir. 1985)). For a n a ttorn ey’s pe rf or m ance t o be c onsi dered ineffecti ve on s uch gr ounds, it m u st be sh ow n th at th e n eg lec te d iss u es are “c lea rly str onge r” than t h e argum ents that actual l y were r ai sed on ap p ea l. Suggs , 51 3 F
. 3d at 678. N o su ch showing has been m ade her e; i nd eed, w e b el i eve none coul d rea

sonab l y b e m ade. I nitiall y, as recogn ized by the district j ud ge, B lake’s ar g um en t m ak es no se ns e g i ve n hi s co nt empor an eo us co nt en ti o n in th i s appe al ( as wel l a s i n h i s § 22 55 pe ti ti o n) that M r. Fabbr i w as i neffecti ve base d o n a confl i c t of i nt e r e s t
. I n e ffe c t, Bl a k e ’ s a r g ume nt i s tha t he was den i ed th e r i g htt o c ho o se i ne ffec ti ve c o uns el

. Gi ve n the34 N o. 11

- 3183

A

- 14. 17 obvi ous weaknes s o fthis a rgum ent, appel l ate co unsel co ul d r ea so nabl y ha ve b el i ev ed th ati t di d no t war r an t ad va n c em en t o n ap p e a l. See K no x v . U nited Sta tes , 40 0 F. 3d 519, 52 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( “A la w ye r w ho co ncentr ate s att enti on on i ssues that have the best chance ofsu c cess do es no t di spl ay obj ec ti ve l yde fi ci en t per f o r m an ce , a nd th us doe s not ren d er i ne ffective ass istanc e of cou ns el. ”). M o r e si g ni fi ca nt l y, c o nt r ar y t o Bl ak e’ s co nt en ti o n, be f o r e th e di st r i ctj udg e g r an te d M r . F ab br i’ s m o ti o n a nd al l owed hi m to withdraw, he e xpressl y e ngage d Blak e by provi ding hi m with a n op p or tuni ty to w ai ve M r . F a b b r i ’ s a l l e g e d c o nfl i c to finte r e s t, i nqui r i ng : “ Do you w an t [Fr a nk Fabbri] to be you r l aw yer or not? T ha t’s what i t amoun ts t o . ” Bl ak e r es po nde d, “ Ido n’ t se e no r e a s o n wh y h e s h o u l d

. I fe e l l i k e h e i s i n th e s a me si tuati on I ’ m i n. ” I n l i ght o fth e fa ct that Bl ake 17 ex p licit ly re fu se d to w aiv e th e c on f l ict an d w illing ly co ns en te d to M r . S te ng er ’ s appo i nt m en t as repl ac ement coun s e l, i tc l e a r l y wa s n o tu nr e a s o nab l e f o r Bl a k e ’ s a ppel l ate co unsel to o m i t thi s i ssue on a pp eali n or der t o concent ra te on o ther, st ro ngerar gum ents. A ccor dingl y, w e affi rm the dist ri ct cour t’ s rul i ng that Blak e has rai sed no via b l e cl ai m thatsho uld have bee n appeal ed, so that a f ai l ure to do so co nsti tutes the i neffec tive as si sta nce of a p p ella te co u n se l.N o. 11

- 3183 35 I I I . C ONC L US I ON A s e xplai ned abov e, Bl ake has f ai l ed to esta b li sh that any o fhis att or neys provi ded hi m with ineffecti ve ass i stance ofco unsel ei therduri ng hi s pro secuti on o r on appeal

. The di str i ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fhis § 22 55 m oti on i s there f or e A FFI RMED .

7- 25- 13