## 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. 12

- 2632 L EVELL T A Y L OR, Pet i t i one r -Appe l l ant, v. R AN D Y G R OUNDS, W ar d en , R obinson Correc tional Ce nt er, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 10 C7489

— G aryFei nerman, Ju dge .
A RG UE D M AR CH 1, 2013

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 3, 2013

Befo re R OV NER, W I L L I A MS, an d H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges. W I L L I A MS, Ci r cu i tJudg e . Pe ti ti onerLevel l Tayl or( “Tayl o r ”) was c o nv i ct ed o fmurde r i n I l l i no i s st ate c o ur t an d sente nced to 35 yea rs ’ i m pri sonm en t. I n thi s habe as appeal, Tayl or com pla i ns thathi s co unsel o perat ed und er a c on flict of in te re st by j oin tly rep re s e n tin g h im an d h is bro ther, Low el l Tayl or( “Low el l ”) , duri ng the i r sim u ltane o us mur de r t r i a l s . T a y l o r a r g ue s tha tthi s c onf l i ct2 N o. 12

- 2632 advers el y a ffecte d his at torney’ s rep re senta ti on be cause hi s l a wy e r r e fus e d t o c a l l c e r t a i n e xc ul pa t o r y wi tne sse s d u rin g T ay lo r ’ s tria l, fea rin g t h ey w ou ld im p lica te h is bro theri n the m u rd er . I n denyi ng Tayl or ’ s r equest for p ostcon viction reli ef, the Il li nois Sup rem e C ou rt concl ud ed that T ay l or ’ s inter est s di d not co nfl i ct with his brother’ s a nd r el i ed upon a purpor ted cr edibi l i ty fi nd i ngb y the p o s t c o nv i cti on t r i a l c o ur tt o c o nc l ud e th at an y con fl ict did not ad versely a ff e c t the p erf or m ance o fTayl or ’ s a tto rney . H i s s ta te- cour t r em edi es e xh a us t e d, T a y l o r fi l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r a wr i to fh a b e as cor pu s under 28 U
. S. C. § 2 254 ass er ti ng t h at hi s t ri al cou ns el w as ineffective un d er Cuyl e rv . S ul l i van , 446 U
. S. 335 (1980 ). W e co ncl ud e that the st ate c ourtunrea sonab l y a pp l i ed Sul l i van i n h o l di ngtha t Ta y l o r ’ s i nt er es t i n pr es en ting ex cu lpato ry w itness es d id n ot con fl ict w ith his brot he r’s i nter esti n preve nti n g th ei r i nculpato ryte sti m ony f ro m b ein g a d m itt ed ath is t ri al. Fu rt h er m or e, th e Illino is Suprem e Cour t unre aso nabl y dete rm ined that the t ri al c ou rt ’s b ar e rej ec t ion of T ay lor’ s c laim m u st h av e c on st itu ted an im p li cit cred ib ili ty fi nd ing in Tay lor’ s attorn ey’s f avo r on the questi on o fwh et her the c onfl i ct o fi nter est ac tu al l y i nfl ue nc ed hi s dec i si o n to r efr ain fr o m c al l i ng Tayl or ’ s witnesse s. Because w e hav e no f actual fi nd i ngs to defe r to on the questi on o fwh etherth e confl i ct of int erest ad versely affecte d Tay lor’ s attorn ey’s pe rform ance a nd the evid en c e in the re cor d i s a m bi guous, w e m ust r em and the m at ter t o the di str i ct c ourtf oran evi denti ar y hea ring to d eterm i ne wh etherthe confl i ct o fN o. 12

- 2632 3 i nter estbetw een Tay l or a n d Low el l adver sel y a ffecte d Ta y l o r ’ s l awy er ’ s r epr es en ta ti o n.

I . B AC KGR OUND On A ugust 1 1, 19 96, B ruce Carte r, K ei th Baker, and other m em ber s o fa gang f ro m Ch i cago ’ s w est si de tr avel ed to a barbecue at a f ri end’s house on Ch i cago ’ s south side. Aft erCa r te r pa r k ed hi s broth er ’ s ca r o n the s i de o fthe ho us e wher e th e ba rbe cue was he l d, Ca r ter, Ba k er, a nd th ei r fel l o w w es t si de co m pat r i o ts e nc o unt er ed ar o und 13 m em ber s o fa ri valga ng fro m C h icag o’ s s outh s i de. T he sout h sid e group i nc lud ed Petitioner L evell T aylor, h is b ro th er L ow ell T ay lor, a n d D u an te A n d er so n . I t wa s n ’ tl o n gb e f o r e a m e l e e a r o s e b e t w e e n th e t wo gr ou p s in the fro nt ya rd o fthe house. Duri ng the fra cas, A nd er son pu nched C ar ter in the f ace and both Car ter an d B ak er w er e fo rc ed to th e g ro u n d an d rep ea te d ly ki cked. Cart er ’ s ca r w i nd ows w er e s m ashed. Even tu al l y, Car t e r a nd Ba k e r ma na g e d t o e s c a pe the i r a s s a i l a nts and ran t oward the fro nt dooro fth e h ou se . Cart erwas shotas he r an and l ate r die d fr om hi s wound s. I n hi s i ni ti als ta te m en t to po l i ce o ffi ce r s who r es po nde d t o the s ce ne , Ba k eri den ti fi ed Lowel la s th e perso n w h o fi re d the g unshot that k i l l ed Carte r. Pol i ce o ffi ce r s th ent r an spo r te d Ba ker and hi s f r i en ds to the station f oraddit i onalquesti oni ng. W hi l e be i ng questi oned a t th e s tat i on, Bakersa w the pol i ce b ri ng Tayl or i nto the s tat i on. A t that po in t, Bakerto l d the o ffi cer that Tayl orwas the pers on wh o passed the gun t o Lo wel l j us t be f o r e th e sh o o ting . Ta y l o r, Lo wel l, a nd4 N o. 12

- 2632 A nd er son w er e l ate r cha rg ed w i th fi rs t- degre e m urder i n c o nne ct i o n wi thCa r te r ’ s dea th

. T ay lor, L ow ell, an d A n d er so n w er e join t l y t rie d in the Ci rcui t Cour t o fCookCounty; Tay l orand A nd er son w er e trie d bef or e the be nch and Low el l befor e a j ury. Tayl or a n d L owellwere both re prese nted by cri m i nal defe ns e a t t o r ne y R a y mon d P r us a kdu r i ngthe i r s i mul t an eo u s t ria ls. P ro se c u to rs so u gh t t o h old T ay lor lia b le f orCa r t e r ’ s de a th un de r a n a c c o un t a b i l i t y the o r y . Under I l l i no i s l aw, a p erso n may b e he l d t o a cc o untf o r the c r i me o fa n o th e r i fh e a i d s th a to th e r p e r s o n i n th e c o mm i ss i o n o fthe o ffen se wi ththe i nt en t to f ac i l i ta te the offe n se ’s c om m iss ion . 720 IL C S § 5/5 -2(c ). A t t ria l, B ake r tes ti fi ed that he sa w Tayl orhand a g un to Lo w ell i mme d i a t e l y b e f o r e L o we l l s h o tC a r t e r . O n c r o s s - e x a mi na ti o n, Ba k era dm i tt ed th athe had t wo pr i o r fel o ny convi cti ons as w el l as thr ee other fel ony charg es that w ere p en d ing at th e tim e of his testim ony . Prosec ut ors al so c al l ed Phi l l i p M ar sh al l, a mem ber of the s ame g an g as T a ylo r, to t h e s ta n d attria l. Inh is gr an d j u ry te st im ony, M ar shal l te sti fi ed that Tayl orcam e t o hi s ho use on the ni ght o fthe shoo ti ng and to l d h im that “he j ust goti nto i t with so m e bo ys dow n the str eetand shotat th em an d s tu ff

. ” Buta t tr i alM ar sh al l re ca nt ed hi s g r an d j ury tes ti m ony. A ccor ding to M ar shal l ’ s tr i al testi m ony, p oli ce offi cers h ad threat en ed to c ha rge him w ith C arter’s m urder unle ss he i m pli cate d his fel l ow gang m em ber s. M ar sh al l ’ s g r an d j ur y t es ti m o ny was r ea d int o the re cor d as i m peachm ent e vi dence. Pr us akde fen ded bo tho fhi s cl i en ts b y a tt ac k i ng the S tat e’ s e vi dence and a rguingthatthe St ate f ai l ed toN o. 12

- 2632 5 dem onst ra te gui l t be yond a r eas onabl e doubt. Tayl or and Lo we l l di d no t, ho we v e r, pu t o n a ny wi tne s s es or prese nt any otherev i dence. I n hi s cl osing ar gum ent for Taylor, Prusa k c onte nd ed that the S tat e’ s witnesse s l ac k ed cr edibi l i tyb ec au se the y wer e co nv i ct ed fel o ns a nd a l s o b e c a us e the y h a d b e e n i mpe a c he d. T he j ury foun d L ow ellguilty offirst- d egree m urd er. A fter the j ury ren d ered i ts verd ict, the t r ialcou rt f ound Tayl orgui l ty offi rs t- degre e m urder and acquitted A nd er son. Tayl orwas l ate r sente nced to 35 yea rs ’ i m pri sonm ent. Tayl orappeal ed hi s co nvi cti on cl ai m i ng tha t he was depri ved o fhi s r i ght t o effecti ve ass i sta nce o f co uns eldue t o a c o nfl i cto fi nterest inPr us ak ’ s j o i nt r epr es en ta ti o n o fTa y l o r a nd hi s broth er Lo wel l

. The I l l i no i s Appel l at e Cou r t affi r m ed th e j udg m en t an d T ay lor d ec lin ed to file a p et itio n for lea ve t o a p p ea l th is deci si on t o the I l l i noi s S uprem e Cour t. On N ove m ber15 , 20 01, Tayl orfi l ed a pos tco nvi cti on p etition i n sta te cou rt and again assert ed that P r u sak’s ass i sta nce was i neffecti ve as a r esul t o fa confl i ct o f i nter est ar i si ng o ut o fthe j oi nt r epres entat i on o fTayl or and Low el l

. I n supp or t of h is conte nti on, Tayl orat
tached affi davi ts f ro m var i ous w i tness es w hi ch st ated th at, b efo r e th e s tar t o ft r i al, M i ch ae l W o o ds, Rufus Bingham , and Tedd y Pl um m er vis i ted Pr usak’ s o ffi ce and i nfo rm ed hi m that t h ey w er e a t the barbecue w hen Car te r was m urd er ed. I n the i r a ffi dav i ts , W o o ds an d Pl um m eras ser ted th at they t ol d Prusak that they saw Lo wel l sh o o t Car te r but th ey di d no t se e Taylor h an d6 N o. 12

- 2632

Pl um m er ’ s affi davi ts t at ed tha t “ I saw Leve l l t ake outa gun 1 an d fire i t a t t he v ictim
. H is bro the r L ev ell d id no t ha nd his brother a gun and w as not i nvo lved in a any [ si c] fig h t.” Pl umm e r l a t e r t e s t i fi e d a tthe po s t c on vi c t i one vi de nt i a ry he arin g tha t he d id n o t r e c o g niz e the typ og rap hica l erro r in the first senten ce qu ote d fro m the a ffid av it be fore sign ing it a s h e d id n o t r ea d it b efo re sig n in g it. L ow ell a g u n . W oo d s a n d P lu m m e r a ss er te d in t h eir 1 affi davi ts that up on r ecei vi ng thi s info rm ati on, Prusak sta ted thathe cou ld n ot cal l ei therwitnes s a t t ri albecause thei r tes ti m ony w oul d hurt Lowell ’ s ca se. T he pos tcon viction trialcou rt held an evid en tiary he ar i ngo n Ta y l o r ’ s cl ai m . Ta y l o r ’ s m o th er, J o y ce Pa r ker, tes t if ied th at sh e and her hu sba nd broug ht Tay lor, W oo d s, B i n gh am , an d P lu m m er to P ru sa k’s offic e in F e b r u a r y 1 9 9 7
. P a r k e r t e s t i fi e d th a t, a ft e r i n t e r v i e wi ng the witnesse s, Prusa k t ol d her that he w ou l d not use th e w itn es se s “ b ec au se th ey w ou ld h u rtL ow ell’s ca se .” Bi ng ha m al so te st i fi ed th at he to l d Pr us ak th athe sa w Lo wel l sh o o t Car te r but di d no t se e T aylor h an d Lo wel l a g un. Bi ng ham s ta te d tha t Pr us akt o l d hi m “ th e re aso n w hy he didn’tn eed us a t the ti m e [ i s] bec ause w e would be a w or ser w itn ess f orLow el l

. ” On cr oss exam i nati on, Bingham ackno w l edged that he h ad fi ve p riorconv ictions (only one of w hich prec ed ed Tay lor’ s tr i a l ) a nd tha th e wa s a me mbe r o fthe s a me g a ngas Ta y l o r . Bi ng ha m a l so s ta te d tha t he t o l d po l i ce that he w itnessed Low el l sho ot Carte r and acknowle dged that he di d not m enti on a nythi ng ab out T ay l ori n hi s ini ti alN o. 12

- 2632 7 sta tem ent. Bi ngham st ate d tha t a t the ti m e o fhi s questi oni ng he w as unaw ar e that the pol i ce b el i eved Tayl or ha d han d ed a gun to his brother be fore Carter’s m urd er. Oth erwi tn es se s f o r T ayl o r i nc l ude d Pl um m era nd Tayl or ’ s f or m erco - defe nd ant, A nd er son. Pl um m er tes ti fi ed that he i nfo rm ed Pru sa k that Tay l ordi d not hand a gun to hi s br othe r and that Pr usak re sponded that Pl um m erwould “hurtbo th o fhi s cl ien ts if [he ] tes ti f [ i ed]. ” Pl um m eradm i tte d that he had i ncurr ed tw o fe lon y c on v i c t i o n s a t t h e t im e o f T ay lor’ s t ria l. Pl u m m er al so ackno w l edged thathe was a m em bero f a s tr eetga ng tha t was fri endlywith T aylo r’ s. Pl um m er tol d pol i ce offic er s that Lowel l sho t Car terduri ng i ni ti al ques t i o ning . He di d no t i nfo r m the m tha t Ta y l o r di d not hand Low el l a gun, but he te sti fi ed that he d id n ot know at the t i m e o fhi s quest i oni ng th at Tayl orwas und er ar re st f orthe shoo ting o r accused ofhanding the gun to hi s br othe r. A nd er son tes tified that Tay l ordi d not ha nd Lo we l l a gu n b e c a us e T a y l o r wa s o n the s i de ofthe ho us e des tr o y i ngCa r te r ’ s ca r a t th e ti m e o fthe shoo ti ng. A nd er son did notspeakwith Pr usak pri orto t r i a l o n the a dv i c e o f hi s a t t o r ne y b ut wa s pr e s e nted at th e postco nv i ct i o n h ea r i ngt o c o r r o bo r at e te st i m o ny ofo therwitnes ses . Tayl orte sti fi ed on hi s o w n behal fatthe postc onvi cti on he ar i ng . A cco r di ngt o Ta y l o r, Pr us akt o l d hi m tha t he coul d not use hi s p otenti alwitnes ses attr i al“be cause th ey si gned st ate m ents aga i nst m y b ro therand i fthey c om e t o c ou rtto te st ify on m y b eh alf t h at th ey w ou ld hurt m y b ro th er . ” Tay l oral so sta ted thathe t ol d Prusak8 N o. 12

- 2632 th at he w as on th e s ide of the hou se “bu sting ou t” C arter’s w i nd ows at the t i m e hi s br oth ersho t Car terev en th o ugh he t o l d p o l i c e h e wa s t wo h o us e s a wa y wh en the inci dent occur re d. H e denie d, how eve r, tel l i ng Pr usak tha th e s mas he d C a rt er ’ s c a r wi nd o ws u s i nga g un . On cro ss- exam i nati on, Taylor acknow l edged thathe di d not m en tion th ese w itness es to the A s s is tan t State’s A ttorne y w ho q ue stioned him on th e nightof th e m urd er. Ra y m o nd Pr us ak w as th e S ta te ’ s o nl y wi tn es s atthe po st co nv i ct i o n e vi den ti ar y he ar i ng . Pr us akr ej ec te d the n ot ion th at h e l a b o r e d u n d er a c on flict of in te re st in re prese nti ng Tayl orand Low el l

. A ccord i ng to Prusa k, “The tria l s were seve re d. They were going to be se p ar at e jur ies or on e w as goin g t o t ak e a be n c h tr i a l. F r o m the b eg i nni ngwe al l kne w tha t [ Ta y l o r ] w as go i ng to have a be nc h t ri albec ause w e a l l bel i eve d that the ca se a ga i nst hi m was f ai rl y weak. ” But o n cr oss ex ami na ti o n, Pr us akmodi fi ed hi s po si ti o n: [ Ta y l o r ’ s C ou ns el ] : W hy di d y o u no t ha ve the sam e j ury f orbo th defendants? [ Prusak]: Beca use they ha d

— TH EY had a ne ed to be s eve re d as f aras wh y. [ Tayl or ’ s Counsel ] : W hy? [ Prusak ] : Because they needed separ ate tr i ers of f act. [ Tayl or ’ s Counsel ] : W hy? [ Prusak ] : Because ther e was a pote nti alther e that a j u ry sho uldn’ t hea r w hat Lowel l had to sa y and w hat Leve l l had to sa y.N o. 12

- 2632 9 [Taylor’s Cou ns el] : You are saying that there w as a pot enti alco nfl i ct? [ Pr o se cut o r ] : Obj ec ti o n. [ Prusak ] : I ftheyhad

— T he Cou rt: Ov erruled

. You m ay an sw er. [P ru sa k]: If th ey h ad th e sam e trie r of fa c t itw ou ld have been a co nfl i ct, ye s. Prusakacknow l edged thathe m et w i th Tayl or ’ s wit

nesse s but disputed the as ser ti on that he rej ec te d them because theywould hurt Low el l ’ s c ase . Prusa k pr ovi ded seve ra l al ter nati ve re aso ns fo r d ecl i ni ng to cal lthe w i tnesse s Tay l orpre sente d. One explanat ion w as that the weaknes s o fthe St ate ’ s ca se aga i nst T aylo r re nd er ed the a dd i ti onalw i tness es unnecessar y. In Prusak ’ s e sti m ati o n, the S tate’s on l y t wo wi tn es se s ty i ngTa y l o r a nd Low el l to the shoo ti ng, M ar shal l and Baker, suffer ed f r o m cr e dib i l i t y p r o b l e ms. As P r us a kt e s t i fi e d: So es senti al l y there were tw o w i tness es, one w as a fl i pp er, o ne stuck t o hi s s tory b u t both o ftho se wi tn es se s ha d c o nv i ct i o ns . The y wer e bo thg an g m embe r s an d the y b o thha d l i ed in the pa sta nd Ifel t th at n ei thero fthem would be cre dibl e wit

ne ss es t o su ppo r t a fi r stde g r ee murde r c o nv i ct i o n. Pr us ak ’ s o th err at i o na l e f o r r efr aini ngfr o m c al l i ng Tayl or ’ s w itn ess es at tr i alwas the pu tat i ve w i tness es’ own cr edibi l i ty probl em s. E ac h pote nti alwitnes s, Prusa k testi fi ed, had cr i m i nal co nvi cti ons and w oul d not m ake a g o o d i m pr es si o n o n the trial c o ur t. Pr us aka l so men-10 N o. 12

- 2632 ti oned i nconsi ste nci es am ong th e witnesse s’ st ate m ents, Tayl or ’ s sta tem ent to pol i ce, and Tay l or ’ s acco u n t of eve nt s tha th e p r o v i de d t o P r us a k

. As a n e xa mpl e, Prusakte sti fi ed that Tayl ortold h im thatatthe ti m e o f th e sh o o ting he was o n th e si de o fthe ho us e br ea k i ngo ut Carte r’ s carwindow s with a gun. Si m i l ar l y, the pu tat i ve wi tn es se s al so t o l d Pr us aktha t T aylor w as o n the s ce ne at the t i m e o fthe shoo ti ng. H owever, i n Tayl or ’ s ini ti al sta tem ent t o pol i ce, he s tat ed that he was two houses aw ay at the t i m e of s h ooti ng. Prusa k s tat ed that such i nc o ns i st en ci es unde r m i ne d the wi tn es se s’ c r edibi l i tya nd st at ed th athe woul d “ be s ubo r ni ngpe rj ur yb y put ting th at ev id en c e o n .” G ive n th e w ea kn es s o f th e St at e’s ca se an d th e c re d ibi l i ty i ssues as soc i ate d w i th Tayl or ’ s witnesse s, Prusa k sta ted thatcal l i ng the witnes ses at tr i al“would j ust be ha ndi ngthe S ta te a m m uni ti o n t o l o se a c as e” tha t he b e l i e v e d “ wa s we a kt o b e g i n wi th, w hi c h Ith o u g h twe had a ve rygo od chance o f w i nning and I di dn ’ t want to l ose the chance ofw i nning the c ase by cal l i ng witne sse s w h o in m y op in ion w er e n otcr ed ible .” Pr us akt es ti fi ed th athe visi ted Lowe l l i n h i s l o ck

- up afterhi s j ury bega n del iber ati ons and “beg ged” h im to te st ify th at T ay lor d id n oth an d h i m t h e g u n u se d to kill Carte r. Prusa k desc ribed the encounteri n hi s t est i m ony: [ Pro secuto r] : W hat was Low el l Tayl or ’ s r esponse ? [ Pr us ak ] : He sh o o khi s he ad, mum bl ed no a nd w alk ed aw ay from m e. I ex p lain ed t o h im t h at h is j ury w as al re ady out. Itw oul dn ’ t have a ny i m pact on hi s ca se w hatso eve r. It m ay h ave an i m pact o nN o. 12

- 2632 11

A ccording t o the A R D C com plaint, Prusak cr oss - exam ined 2 an ey ew itness to a n a rm ed rob b ery so as to so lid ify her id en tific at i on of one of hi s c l i en t s , Cor i an W hi t e, while u nd er m i ni ng he r id en tifi c at i on ofhi s othe r c l i en t, Tr ac y Cha m ber s . As the I l l i n o i s A p p e l l a t e C o u r tn o t e d in it s o p i n i o n r e v e r si n g W h i t e ’s c onvi c t i on re gar di ng P ru sak ’ s cross-e xa m i nati on, “[ t ] he pr os ecuti on could not have d one a better j ob of e li ci ti ng f act s that 

### (continued...) hi s appe all at erdo wn th e r o ad. Yo u kno w, the appell ate co urt m i ght l oo k a t i t a nd sa y that he , th at h e m ad e s om e so rtof ad m iss ion . A s fa r as h is j ury w as concerned ther e w as nothi ng f orthem to consi der a nym or e. They were al re a dy del iber ati ng. Prusakl ate r explained: “An d i fI ’ m beg gi ng [ Tayl or ’ s] bro theri n the l ockup to te sti fy Iwould have gl adlyhave h e l p e d , t a k e n h e l p fr o m a n yb o d y w h o w o u l d h a v e c o me o ffthe s tr ee t an d t es ti fi ed t o s aya g o o d thi ngabo ut th at you n g m an b e c a u se I w as try in g t o w in h is c as e.” W eek s l ate r, the postco nvi cti on t ri alco urt i ssued a bri ef tw o-p ar ag ra p h r u lin g d en yin g t h e p et itio n . Th e Illino is A pp el l ate Courtsubse quentl y a ffi rm ed the denialo f th e pet i ti o n. Du ring the pendency ofthe appeal, the I l l i noi s Attor ney Regi str ati on and D i sci pli naryCom m i ssi on ( “A RD C”) fi l ed a com pla i nt aga i nst Prusak charg i ng h im w ith i m proper l y r epres enti ng ano th er se t o fco - defe nd ants w h ile op er at in g u n d er a c on flict of in te re st
. In reRaym ond L. Pr us ak, 06 C H 00 66 , avai l ab l eathttp : //w w w . iardc

. org ( l as t vi si te d J une 2 4, 2 01 3)
. Ev en tu al l y, the I l l i no i s S u- 212 N o. 12

- 2632



### (...continued) su p p o r t e d h e r id e n t i fi c a t i o n o f d e fe n d a n tW h i t e , c o u n se l ’s ow n cl ie nt. ” P eo p le v . Wh ite, 8 4 2 N. E. 2 d 1 8 8 , 1 9 2 ( I l l

. App
. C t. 2 0 0 5 ). prem e Cour t s uspend ed P ru sa k fro m the pract i ce o fl aw pen di ngh i s co m pl i an ce wi thc er ta i n c o ndi ti o ns i ncl ud i ng se curing an exper i enced defense att or ney m ento r to supervi se Prusak ’ s ha n d li ng o fcr i m i nal cas es. In re : Raym ond L. Pr us ak, I ll

. Sup
. Ct
. , M
. R
. 22666 ( eff. D ec em b er 9, 20 08 ), avai l ab l eathttp : //w w w . iardc .o rg ( l astvi si ted J une 24, 2 01 3). A s o fJ une 24, 20 13, Prusa k re m ain s unauthor i zed to prac ti ce l aw due to di sci pli ne. I l l i no i s At t o r ne y R e g i s t r a t i o n & Di s c i pl i na r y Co mm i ssio n of th e Su p re m e C o u r t o fIl lin ois , L AW YER S EA R CH, ht tp : //ww w. i ar dc. o r g/ l awy er se ar ch

. as p. Ta y l o r c i te d the ARD C c o m pl ainti n h i s pet i ti o n f o r l ea ve to a ppea l t o the I l l i noi s S up re m e C ourt, wh i ch w as gr anted o n J anuary28 , 2009
. The I l l i noi s S up re m e Cour t a ffi rm ed the denia l o fTaylor’ s p os tc on vic tio n p et itio n . Peop l ev. Tayl or, 93 0 N
. E.2 d 959 ( 2010 )
. The co urt ap p li ed the f ra m ew or k desc ribed i n Cuyl e rv. Su l l i van , 4 46 U. S
. 3 35 ( 19 80 ), for e va l ua ting pur po r te d v i o l at i o ns o fthe S i xth Am en dm en t ar i singo ut o fc o nfl i ct s o fi nt er es t th atwer e not raised att r i al

. The cour t quot ed the Sulli van deci si on i n hol ding that “[ w ] here , as her e, a potenti alco nfl i c t of i nter esti s no t br o ug htt o the a tt en ti o n o fthe t rial c our t, ‘ a defen dan t m u st es ta b lish th at an ac tu al con flict of in te re st ad ve rs ely affe c ted hi s l aw yer ’ s per f or m ance. ’ ” Taylo r, 93 0 N
. E.2 dN o. 12

- 2632 13 at 971. I n other w or ds, the I l l i noi s S up re m e Cour t sai d, “a defe nd ant m ust s how thatan a ctualco nfl i ct o fint erest m an i fes te d a t t ria l

. W ha t th i s m ea ns i s th atthe defen dan t m us t po i ntt o s o m e speci fi c defec t i n h i s co unsel ’ s s tr ate gy tact i cs, o r deci si on m aki ng at tributabl e t o the confl i ct. ” Id. at97 1- 72 ( ci tat i ons and i nter nal quotation m arks om itted ). U si ng thi s a nal ysi s, the cour t f ound t h at T ayl or“f ai l ed to est abl i sh an actualconfl i ct o fi nter esti n the j oi nt r epresenta ti on o fhi m sel fand Low el l t hat a dvers el y a ffecte d Prusak ’ s per f or m ance a t t ri al

. ” Id. a t 9 72
. Af te r no ting th at“the onl y al l eg ed spe ci fi c defec t i n P r us ak ’ s r epr es en ta tio n th at [T ay lor] a tt rib u te s t o t h e c laim ed co n flict is th at P ru sa k fa iled to ca ll [ T ay lor]’ s p ro ffer ed w itn es se s,” th e co ur t f o und that th es e wi tn es se s “mer ely r ai se d the possi bil itythatthe i nter est s o f[ Tayl or ] and Low el l m ay d ive rg e. ” Id. at97 2. Put ano therway, “[ t] he m er e a vai lab i l i tyo fa s tr at egy tha t woul d ha ve h elped o ne cri m i nal co defe nd ant a t the expense ofano th er does not cre ate hos ti l i ty between thei r i nter est s. ” Id

. The cour t als o fo und thatTayl orf ai l ed to es tabl i sh an adv er se effec t o n Pr us ak ’ s per f o r m an ce . I n re nde r i ng its h o lding, the cou rt ackn ow ledge d the con trad ictory nature o fthe evi dence pres en te d by bo th si des “a s t o w he th er P r u sak’s d ecision not to callde fend an t’s pr o ffer ed w i tn es se s was a tt r ibut ab l e to the a l l eg ed co nfl i ct o f i nter est
. ” Id. at97 3. Because re sol vi ng thi s co nfl i ct “r est ed substa nti al l y on the cre dibi l i ty of the w i tness es atthe e vi den ti ar y he ar ing[ , ] ” th e co ur t r el i ed o n the p u rp or te d j u d gm en t of th e c irc u it c ou rtw h ich “e vid en tly14 N o. 12

- 2632 f ound Pr usak’ s t est i m ony m or e cr edibl e. ” Id. I n a ffi r m i ng th e ci r cui t co ur t’ s al l eg ed cr edibi l i tyde te r m i na ti o n, the I l l i no i s S upr eme Co ur t r el i ed o n di sc r epa nc i es a m o ng th e t es tim on y of T ay lor a n d h is p u r p o r te d w itn es se s. Id. at 973- 74. Tayl orthen fi l ed a pet itio n f orfedera l habea s r el i ef ba sed u p o n P r us ak ’ s al l eg ed co nfl i cto fi nt er es t. The di st r i ctc o ur t den i ed th e pet i tion and c o nc l ude d tha t th e I l l i no i s S upr eme Cou r t’ s dec i si o n was no t co nt r ar y t o , a nd d id n o t inv olv e a n u n re as on ab le a p p lica tio n of, Sul l i van . I n rej ec tin g Tay l or ’ s cl ai m , the dist ri ct c ourtf ound that th e I l l i no i s S upr eme Co ur t ha d no t unr ea sonabl y c o nc l ud e d tha ta nyco nfl i c to fi nt e r e s ti n Pr us a k ’ s j o i ntr e presen tation d id n ot affect h is p e r form an ce at T aylor’s b en c h tria l. Af t e r de ny i ngthe p e t i t i o n, the di str i c tc o ur ti s s ue d a cer ti fi cat e o fappeal abi l i ty on the ce ntra l questi on w hich w e m us t now resolve: “[w ]heth er trial cou ns el’ s j oin t r epres entat i on o fPeti ti onerLevel l Tayl orand his co-d efend an t/broth er, Low ellTay lor, v iol ated Petitioner’s const i tuti onalr i ght t o the e ffecti ve as si sta nce o fco unsel unde r the S i xth a nd F o ur teenth Am en dm en ts t o the U n ite d Sta te s C on st itu tio n .”

II. A N A L Y S IS Our a ss es smento fTa y l o r ’ s cl ai m i s g over ne d b y the A nti ter ro ri sm and Effecti ve D eath Penal ty A ct o f19 96 (“A E D PA ”), 28 U
. S. C
. § 2254. W he re, a s h ere, a state cou rt dec i des a c o ns ti tu ti o na l c l ai m o n the mer i ts , AEDPAN o. 12

- 2632 15 pr o vi des tha t a wri t o f h abe as c o r pus wi l l no t i ss ue u nl ess the sta te- cour t a dj ud i cati on “ re sul ted i n a d ec isio n th at w as c o n t r ar y t o, or in vo lve d an u n re as on ab le ap p li cation of, clearl y estab li sh e d F ed eral l aw , as de term i ned by the S up re m e Cour t o fth e U ni ted S tat es” o r “r esul te d i n a de c i s i o n tha t wa s b a sed o n an unr ea so nabl e det er m i na ti on of the f ac ts ” i n l i g hto fthe evid en ce before th e st a t e c o urt
. 28 U
. S. C
. § 2254(d )( 1)-( 2). “W h en a st at e c olla te ra l rev iew sy st em iss u es m u ltip le deci si ons, we typi cal l y c onsi der the l astr eas oned opi ni on o n th e c l a i m”

— in th is c as e, th e o p in ion of th e Illino is Su p re m e C ou rt
. Wool l ey v . Re dnou r, 70 2 F.3d 41 1, 42 1 (7th C ir. 2012) (int erna l qu otation m arks om itted ). The sta n d ar d descr ibed i n § 2 254( d)( 1) i s a st ri ct o ne . “ [ A]n unre asonableap p l i c at ion of fed er al la w is di ffer en t from a n incorrec tap p lica tio n of fed er al la w .” Willi am s v. Tayl or, 52 9 U.S
. 36 2, 41 0 ( 2000 ) ( em phasi s in origi na l)

. To e stab li sh his entitlem en t to hab eas reli ef, Ta y l o r “ m us t sh o w tha t th e state c our t’ s r ul i ngo n the cl ai m . . . w as so l acking i n j usti fi cati on that there was ane r r o r well unde r st o o d a nd c o m pr eh en ded i n e xi st i ng l aw bey ond any pos sibi l i ty f orf ai rm i n ded di sag re em ent. ” Ha rring to n v . Ric hter, 131 S. C t
. 770, 786-87 (2011 ). I n ev aluat ing the I ll inois cour t s ’ an alysis of Taylor’s cl ai m unde r s ec ti o n 22 54 ( d) ( 1) , we pr es um e th atthe cour ts’ f actuald ete rm i nati ons ar e co rr ect unle ss Tayl or re b u ts th e p re su m p tio n b y c lea r an d co n vin c in g e viden ce . 28 U. S
. C. § 2 25 4( e) ( 1)
. “ The s ta nda r d i s demandi ng but noti n sa ti abl e . . . defer ence does not by defini ti on precl ud e r el i ef

. ” M i l l e r - El v
. D r e t ke, 54 5 U.S
. 23 1, 24 0 ( 2005 ) ( quoti ng M il le r- E l v. Co ckre ll, 537 U
. S. 322 (2003)).16 N o. 12

- 2632 Courts em plo y a st andard sim i l arto § 2254 ( e) ( 1) to ev al uate w hethera sta te cour t deci si on r est ed upon an unrea sonab l e dete rm i nati on o fthe fac ts. “Un der § 2254 (d)(2), a dec isi on inv olv es an un reason able d eterm i na ti o n o fthe f ac ts i fi t r ests u po n f ac t- fi ndi ng th at ign or es th e c lea r an d co n vin c in g w eig h t o f th e e vidence. ” G o ud y v. B a s i n ger, 604 F.3d 394 , 399-400 (7th Cir. 2010 ) ( ci ti ng Wa rd v . Sternes , 334 F.3d 696 ( 7th Cir. 2003)). T ay lor’ s p rin c i p a l co n te n tio n is th at th e Illino is S upr eme Cou r t unr ea so nabl y appl i ed fede r al law and u n re as on ab ly d et er m i n e d th e fa c ts in ligh t o f th e e vid en c e in rej ecting hi s cl ai m that he w as depri ved of his Si xth and Four tee nth A m endm ent ri ghts to effecti ve ass i sta nce o fco unsel bec ause hi s a tto rneyl abor ed und er a c on flict of in te re st
. See U
. S. Const. amend. VI, XI V. T ay lor’ s Six th A m en d m en t c on flict -of-in te re st cla im is g o ve r ne d b ythe fr amewor kde sc r ibe d i n Cuyl e rv. Sul l i van , 446 U .S. 33 5 (1 98 0), an d rel a t e d ca se s. In Sul l i van , the S upr em e Co ur t he l d tha t a defen dan t who r ai se d no co nfl i ctofi nt er es t o bj ec ti o n a t tr i almustde m o nstr a t e tha t( 1 ) the de fe nd a nt ’ s i nt e r e s t s c o nfl i c t e d wi th thos e o fa codefendant r epres ented bythe sam e a tto rn ey ; a n d ( 2 ) th e c on flict “a d ve rs ely affe c te d h is l aw yer ’ s per f or m ance. ” Id. at34 8-4 9; s e eal s o M icke ns v. Taylo r, 5 3 5 U. S
. 1 6 2 , 1 7 1 ( 2 0 0 2 ) ( “ [ W ] e think‘ a n a c t ua l c o nfl i c to fi nt e r e s t ’ me a ntp r e c i s e l y a c o nfl i ct tha t affect ed counsel ’s per

form ance

— as opposed to a m er e theor eti cal div i si o n o fl o y al ti es ”)
. Puta no th erway, the de fen dan t m us t sh o w tha t hi s at to r ne y was i nfl ue nc ed by th e confl i ct in m aki ng “b asi c st ra teg i c deci si ons” i n a m annerN o. 12

- 2632 17 ad ve rs e t o t h e d efe n d an t. SeeWood v. Georgia , 450 U
. S. 26 1, 272 ( 1 9 8 1 )
. Unl i k e o the r f o r ms o fi ne ffe c t i v e a s s i s t a nce cl ai m s, “a defendant w h o sh ows that a co nfl i ct o fi nter est actual l y a ffecte d the adequacy of h is repr ese ntati on nee d n otd em on st r a t e p rej u d ice in o rd er to ob ta in relie f.” Sul l i van , 44 6 U.S
. at34 9- 50. A l though the I l l i noi s Suprem e Court cor re ctl y i denti fi ed the Sul l i van ana lysi s as the stan d ard gove rning Tay lor’ s c laim , Taylo r, 93 0 N
. E.2 d at 9 70- 74, Tayl orco nten ds that the c o ur tu nr e a s o nab l y a pp l i e d Sull i van and other S up r e me Co ur tc a s e l a w i n h o l di ngth a th i s S i xth Am e nd

men tr i g ht s we r e n o tv i o l a t e d.

A . T h e Il li n ois S u p rem e Co u rtU n reason ab ly Appl i e d Sul l i van i n Con cl u d ing th at Taylor’s Interests D id N ot Con fl ict w it h Low ell’ s Interests Tayl orco ntends thatthe I l l i nois Sup re m e Cour t unre ason ably ap p li ed fed eral l aw i n fin d in g that Tay lor’ s i nter est s di d not co nfl i ct with L ow el l ’ s inter est s with r es pec t to the s el ec ti o n o fa de fen se a t tr i al

. I n c o nc l udi ng th at no suc h con fl ict existed , the Il li n o is Su p rem e C ou rt unreas onabl y e quated Prusak ’ s com m on d efense str ate gy w i th the abs ence ofanta goni sm betw een the br othe rs ’ i nter est s. The co urt note d that both Tayl orand hi s br othe r denie d thei r gui l t, di d not i m pli cate the ot h er per son at tr ial, and that thei r att or ney “ vi gor ousl y c ro ss- exam i ned th e S ta te ’ s wi tn esses, i m pea ch ed th ei r c r edibi l i ty, a nd ar gued that the S tat e f ai l ed to m ee t its burden ofpro of beyo nd a re aso n ab le doubt. ” Taylo r, 93 0 N
. E.2 d at 9 72
. W ith res p ec t t o T ay lor’ s p ot en tia l d efe n se ba se d u p on h is18 N o. 12

- 2632 proffer ed w i tness es, the cour t f ound that “ [ a] t m ost, defe nd ant’ s pro ffer ed w i tness es m er el y r ai sed the po s si

bil ityth at th e i n t e r e s t s o f [T ay lor] a n d L ow ell m ay d iver ge. . . The m er e a vai l abi l i ty ofa str ate gy that woul d ha ve he l ped o ne c r i m i na l c o defen dan t atthe e xp e ns e o fa no the r do e s n o tc r e a t e h o s t i l i t y b e tw een thei r i nter est s. ” Id. (em p ha sis i n origi na l)

. Inan aly zin g t h is a sp ec t o f T ay lor’ s c laim , th e Illino is Suprem e Cour t failed to r eco gni ze that a co m m on defe nse fortwo cl i en ts does not necess ar i l y dem onst ra te the absence o fa confl i ct b etween their inter est s. To b e su r e, the S upr eme Co ur t has r ec o g ni ze d tha t th e i nter est s o ftwo orm or e defendants ca n be ser ved by thei r shar ed att or ney’ s pursui t ofa si ngl e d efense str ate gy. H ol l oway v. Arkans as , 4 3 5 U
. S. 475, 482-83 (1978 ) (“ ‘A com m on defense often g i ves str ength aga i nst a co m m on att ack’ ” ( quoti ng G la sser v. U nited Sta tes , 31 5 U.S
. 60 , 92 ( 1942 ) ( Fr ankfurte r, J
. di sse n ting) ) )
. But thi s i s no t a l w ays the c ase . The p re se n tat i on o fa unit ed fro nt m ay not be c onsi ste nt with one defe nd ant’ s inter esti fi t r equi re s th e a b an d on m en t o f a p lau sib le d efe n se th at b e n e fits h im at th e ex p en se of his c o d e fen d an t. Se eSu l l i van , 446 U
. S. at 35 0 (re m a n d i n g for co n sid er at ion of w h et h er p et iti oner ’ s co unsell abor ed und erco nfl i ct ofi nter estwh en deci ding aga i nst pr ese nti ng defense i n or der t o protect codefendants’ i nter est s) ; s ee also G la sser v. U nited Sta tes , 315 U
. S. 60 , 72

- 73, 75

- 76 ( 1942 ) ( fi nd i ng defenda nt deni ed effe c t i v e a s s i s t a nc e wh e n hi s a t t o r ne y de c l i ne d t o c r o s sexam i ne go ver nm ent witness f orfearo fprej ud i ce t o cod efend an t).N o. 12

- 2632 19 I n or der t o deter m i ne wh etherthe bro ther s’ i nter est s wer e bo ths er ve d b y the pur su i t o fa c o m m o n de fen se , the cour t m ust e va lu ate the str ength ofthe pu tat i ve defe nse disc ar ded by hi s a tto rneyand w heth eri ts prese ntati on w oul d harm t h e inter est s o fa codefendant r epres ented b y t h e s am e a tt or n ey . See H ol l oway, 43 5 U.S
. at49 0 ( “[ I ] n a c as e o f j oin t rep re se n ta tio n of c on flict in g in te re st s t h e e vilit be ar s r epe at i ng

— is in w h at t h e a d vo c at e fin d s h im se lf com pel l ed to re

frain fr o m do i ng . . . . ”). Sp eci fi ca l l y, the c o ur tmus tde t e r mi ne wh e the r the de fe ns e p r ese nte d a pla usibl e a l ter nati ve to th e st ra tegy a ctual l y purs ued at tr ial. Se e, e . g. , Gr i

f f i n v . M cVi ca r, 84 F. 3 d 8 8 0 , 8 87 (7th C ir. 1996 ) ( “The te st f orco nfl i ct b etween defen d ants i s no t w hetherthe defe nses actual l y c hose n by them ar e co nsi ste ntb utwhethe r i n mak i ngthe c hoice of de fen se s th e i nt er es ts o fthe de fend an ts wer e i n c o nfl i ct ” ( quo ting U ni t e d St at e s ex r e l
. Gray v. D i r e ct or, D ept
. of Cor r e ct i ons , 72 1 F. 2d 586, 59 7 ( 7th Cir
. 1983 ) ) )
. The aba nd oned defense need no t be a wi nning one ; t o s ug g es t o th er wi se woul d r un contr ar y t o the S up re m e Cour t’ s pro h ibit i on a gai nst “i nd ulg [ i ng] in n i ce c al cul ati ons as to the a m ount o f pr ej udi ce a tt r ibut ab l e to the c o nfl i ct ” when ev al uati ng c on flict ofi n te re st cla im s. Sul l i van , 44 6 U.S
. at34 9 ( int erna l qu otation m arks om itted ). W ithou t an as sessm ent of t h e d i s c a r d e d d efe n se an d its rela tio n sh ip to h is br o th er ’ s i nt eres ts , the c o ur t co ul d no t det er m i ne w hethero r not Tayl or ’ s i nter est s were at odds w i th Low ell ’ s i n the c o nt ex t o fc ho o singa de fen se t o pur su e at tria l. The I l l i noi s S up re m e Cour t unre aso nabl y decl i ned to p er for m an y a n aly sis of T ay lor’ s p ot en tia l d efe n se in20 N o. 12

- 2632

asses sing his Sixth A m en d m en t claim

. I f it h a d , the cou rt w oul d have a rr i ved atthe i nescapabl e co ncl usion that T ay lor’ s p ot e n t i al s tr at eg y w as su fficie n tly p lau sib le su c h th at h is in te re st s w er e a t o d d s w i t h th os e o f h is bro theri n deci ding w hetherto pursue a uni fi ed ass aul t o n th e S ta te ’ s ev i d en ce. Undi spu te d e vi den ce a t th e postco nvi cti on e vi denti ar y hea ri ng r eve al ed thatthr ee eye w i tness es to the fi ght, B i ngham , P l um m er, and W oo ds, m et w i th Pr usak. Each w i tness to l d Pru sa k that they w ou ld te st ify th at th ey sa w L ow ell s h oo t C ar te r b u t d id n ot se e Ta ylo r h an d L ow ell a g u n . Th es e w itn es se s w ou ld ha v e r e fut e d the S t a t e ’ s o nl y e v i de nc e c o nn e c t i ngT a y l or to the c ri m e by co ntra dict i ng te sti m ony that Tayl orpro vi ded hi s br o th erwi ththe murde r wea po n. Furtherm or e, T ayl or ’ s int er esti n pres enti ng hi s e xculpatory w itness e s w as d irectly at od d s w ith his broth er’s i nter esti n excl ud i ngthe i r tes ti m ony. U nd i sputed evi dence dem onst ra tes thatea ch ofTayl or ’ s putativ e witnesse s w ou ld h a ve testifi ed that they w itness ed Low ellfire the s hot that killed C arter
. A s Pr usak w as aw ar e, two of the witnesse s, Bi ng h am and Pl um m er, had spoke n to po l i ce dur i ngthe i r i ni ti ali nv es ti g at i o n a nd, c o ns i st en t w i th the i r proffer ed tes ti m ony, had to l d the autho ri ti es that Low el l sho t Car ter
. These pri orco nsi ste nt st ate m ents to po l i c e i de nt i fy i ngLo we l l a s the s ho o t e r o nl y e nh a nced the dange r that thei r tes ti m ony posed to Low el l

. A l though th e p ot en tia l p rej u d ice to L ow ell m ay h av e b ee n sligh tly l ess ened by the f act that he and hi s br othe r had si m ult an eo u s tria ls b efo re se p ar at e t rie rs of fac t, Sul l i van , 44 6 U
. S. at34 7, thi s pro cedural m aneuverdi d not e l i m i nate th e p ot en tia l ha rm . A n y w itn es s t h a t T ay lor c alle d in h isN o. 12

- 2632 21 proce edi ng would have been m ade ava i l abl e instantl y t o th e pr o se cut i o n f o r us e i n Lo wel l ’ s tr i al

. I nd eed , the S upr eme Cou r t i n Sul l i van recogn ized that suc h a sev erance doe s no t a utom ati cal l y c ure a co nfl i ct o fi nter est b e tw ee n co d efe n d an ts
. Id. a t3 3 8

- 3 9 , 3 5 0 ( r e man di ngf or consi derat ion o fco nfl i ct when defe nd ant’ s a tto rney tes ti fied thathe di d not put o n w i tness es “beca use I tho ught we wo ul d o nl y b e e xp o s i ng the [ de fe ns e] witne sses for the oth er tw o tri als that w ere com ing up ”). Prusa k hi m sel fco nceded that the br oth er s had di v e r g e nti nt e r e s t s wi th r e g a r d t o the i r de fe ns e s . Wh en asked w hy he felt th e ne ed to have his cli en ts tried be fore separ ate fi nd er s o ff act, Prusak responded thatthe proce du ra l m aneuverwas nece ss ary “ [ b] ecause ther e was a p otenti alther e that a j ury shoul dn ’ t hea r w hat L ow ell had to sayand w hat Leve l l had to say . ” Pr usak’ s j usti fi cati on dem onst ra tes hi s re c ogni ti on that a ny at tem pt to ex on er at e T ay lor t h ro u gh te s t im on ial ev id en c e w ou ld necess ar i l y har m Low el l ’ s inter est s. By f a i l i ngt o c o ns i de r the s t r e ng th o fT a y l o r ’ s de fe ns e an d its rela tio n sh ip to L ow ell’ s in te re st s, th e Illino is Sup rem e C ou rt un reason ab ly ap p li ed Sup rem e C ou rt prece dent r equi ring exam i nati on o fth e p ro verbi alr oad not tak en to deter m i ne wh ethera confl i c t of inter estexi ste d b et w ee n co d efe n d an ts w ith sh ar ed rep re se n ta tio n . H ol l oway, 4 35 U
. S
. a t 48 9- 90 ( “J o i ntr epr es en ta ti o n o fc o nfl i cti ng i nter est s i s s uspect be cause ofwh at i t t ends to preve nt the at torney fro m doi ng”)
. The br othe rs ’ i nter est s cl ear l y we r e a to ddsbec ause Tayl or ’ s witnesse s co nsti tuted a po te nt i al l y s ucc ess fulde fen se s tr at egy f o r Ta y l o r b ut22 N o. 12

- 2632 p os ed a sig n ifica n t t h re at to L ow ell’s ca se attria l. In concl ud i ng tha t Tay l or ’ s inter est s were harm oni ou s w i th Low el l ’ s, the I l l i noi s Suprem e C ourtreached a co ncl usi on that “w as so l acking i n j usti fica tio n that ther e was an er ro r w el l understo od and com prehended i n exi sti ng l aw be y o nd a ny po ss ibi l i tyf o r f ai r m i nde d di sa g r ee m en t .” R ich ter, 13 1 S
. Ct. at78 6- 87.

B. I l l i nois Sup r em e Cour t ’ s Ad ve r se Ef f ectD eci si on W as Ba sed on an U nreas onable D et erm i nati on of the Fac ts Even though Tay l or ’ s inter est s were contr ar y to those o f his broth er Low ell, becau se T aylor did not register a confl i ct-base d obj ecti on a t t ri alhe m ust s how t h at “a n actu al confli ct of in terest ad versely affecte d his l aw yer’s per f o r m an ce ” i n o r dert o e st ab l ish a S i xth Am en dm en t vio lat ion
. Sul l i van , 4 46 U .S. at 3 48 . In ot h er w or d s, Sul l i van re q uir es Tayl orto sho w thatPrusa k’ s r efusalto cal l h is w itness es w as in fac t c au sed b y a de sire to p rotect L ow ell ’s in te re st s. S e eB u rg e rv . Ke mp , 483 U
. S. 776, 784-85 (1987 ). T aylor conten d s tha t the I ll inois Sup rem e C ou rt’s co nc l us i o n tha t th e co nfl i cto fi nt er es t be twe enTay l o r a nd Low el l di d not a dvers el y a ffect Prusak ’ s per f or m ance “ w as b as ed on an u n r e a s on ab le d et er m in at ion of th e fa c ts in l i g hto fthe e vi den ce ” i n tha t i t ign or ed th e cl ea r a nd con vi nci ng weight o fthe evi dence befor e the co urt. 28 U .S.C . § 22 54 (d )(2) ; Goudy, 60 4 F
. 3d at 399- 400. T h e Illino is Su p re m e C ou rtco n c lu d ed th at T ay lor c ou ld not show an adver se effect on Prusak’ s r epres entat i onN o. 12

- 2632 23 bec au se th e d ecision to refr ain from call ing Ta ylor’ s w i tness es w as base d upon str ate gi c consi derat i ons u n re l at ed to the c o nfl i cto fi nt er es t be twe enTa y l o ra nd L ow ell. Taylo r, 9 3 0 N
. E
. 2 d a t9 7 2

- 74
. T h e I l l i n o i s S u p r e me Cou r t co nc l ude d tha t Pr us akde ci ded ag ains t pr es en ting Tayl or ’ s witnesse s be cau se, “i n hi s pro fess i onalj ud gm en t, the y wer e wea kwi tn es se s,” a nd b ec au se he th ou gh t th at T ay lor w ou ld be be tt er se rv ed b y s im p ly at ta c kin g t h e s u fficie n c y of t h e St at e’s ev id en c e. Id. B e c a u s e P r u s a k ’ s r a t i o na l e d i d n o ti mp l i c a t e th e c o mpeti ng i nter est s o fthe tw o b ro ther s, the cour t hel d that Ta y l o r c o ul d n o tes t a b l i s h a vi o l a t i o n o fhi s S i xth Am e nd

m en t rig h ts
. Id. at974. In e v alu at in g t h is p ar t o f T ay lor’ s c laim , th e Illino is Suprem e Court re l i ed upon the postco nvi ctio n tr i al cour t’ s purpor ted im p li ci t f actualfi nd i ng tha t Pr usak r ej ec te d the thr ee wi tn es se s f o r s tr at eg i c r ea so ns unr el at ed to the c o nfl i cto fi nt er es t be twe en T ayl o r a nd L ow ell. Id. a t 97 3- 74
. The c o ur t ac k no wl edg ed th atthe postco nvi cti on t ri alco urt m ade no ex p li ci t f actual fi nd ing bu t note d that the c o n fl ict of interest i nq uiry r equi r es a f ac tu alde te r m i na ti o n “ o fs pec i fi c defec ts i n the re prese ntati on” such that“the cir cui t co urt necess ar i l y had to ba se its ru lin g on th e s p ec ific c i r c u m st an c es of th is case [
. ] ” Id. at 970. H ere, “th e testim ony at the ev iden t iary hear i ng was contradicto ry, se tting up a quest i on o ff act as to w he th er Pru sak’s d ecision n o t to callde fend an t’s pr o ffer ed wi tn es se s was a tt r ibut ab l e to the a l l eg ed c o nfl i ct o fi nter est
. ” Id. at97 3. G ive n th at res ol u t i o n o f th is iss u e “ re st ed su b st an tia lly o n t h e c re d ibilit y of t h e w itness es at the e vi denti ar y hea ri ng[ , ] ” th e cour t co ncl ud ed24 N o. 12

- 2632 th at“ th e ci r cui t co ur t ev i den tly f o und P r us ak ’ s te st i m o ny m o r e cr edibl e” a nd r ej ec te d Ta y l o r ’ s S i xth Am en d m ent c laim ba se d so lely on th is c re d ibilit y fin d in g. Id. Ta y l o r c ha l l en g es the I l l i no i s Supr eme Co ur t’ s fi ndi ng th at th e p os tc on vic tio n tria l co u rtm ad e a n im p licitcr ed ibi l i ty deter m i nati on a ccepti ng Pr usak’ s e xplanat i on f or hi s r efusalto pre sent Tayl or ’ s witnesse s. Fo r pu rpos es of c olla te r a l r ev iew , w e m u st d efe r to th e Illino is Suprem e Cour t’s chara cter i zati on o fwh at the pos tconvi cti on t ri alco urt f ound un l ess the peti ti onerpre sents c l e a r an d c o nv i nc i ngev i de nc e to o v e r c o me tha tp r e s umptio n . 28 U .S.C . § 22 54 (e)(1 ); P a rker v . D ugger, 49 8 U.S
. 30 8, 320 (1991 ) (holdin g tha t a stat e a p p ell ate cou rt’s “de term i natio n o fwh at the t ri alj ud ge f ound is an i ssue of hi sto ri calf act” enti tl ed to appropr i ate defer en ce under § 2 25 4); Wright v. Walls , 288 F. 3d 937, 944 ( 7th C ir. 2002) ( “[ A] r ev i ew in gc o ur t’ s ch ar ac te r i za ti o n o fwhatthe trialj ud ge foun d i s one of historical fact”). The p o s t c o nv i c t i o n t r i a l c o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n r ej e c t i ngT a ylor’ s claim w as ex ceed ingly bri ef: This case i s up f ora rul i n g. I t’ s be en co nti nued ab o ut thi r tys o m e ti m es , a nd Iha ve r ev i ewe d the tr anscr i pts o n sev er al o ccasi ons, the A pp el l ate o p i n i o n, th e mo t i o n p r e s e n t e d b y th e a t t o r n e y s . We al so ha d a he ar i ngwher e M r . Pr us ak te st i fi ed, a nd Ico nsi dered al l thati n determ in in g whether or n otth e p et itio n h as an y m er it. A fterco nsi deri ng a l l the evi dence, the tes ti m ony, an d th e a rg u m en ts of th e la w ye rs , t h i s C ou rt, i t isN o. 12

- 2632 25 the Cour t’ s o pini on that M r. Taylor d i d not r ece i ve an y s ubs ta nt i alde vi at i o n o fhi s co ns ti tu
tio n al ri g h ts , an d th er efo re th e P C p et itio n is he r e b y de ni e d. The tr i alco urt’ s t w o- parag ra ph-l ong or aldeci si on prese nts no i nd i cati on o fan i m pli ci t cr edibi l i ty fi nd i ng. The rul i ng co ntai ns n o m enti on o fthe w or d “cre dibi l i ty” nori ncl ud es any l anguage sugg est i ng a c om p ar i son of th e beli evab il ity ofe ither side’s acc ou nt of th e facts su rro und i ng Pr usak’s r epres entat i on o fTayl or . The tr i al c ou rtcit es n o fa c ts an d d oe s n otd es c r i b e th e le ga l p rin c ipl es i t appl i ed i n r ej ec tingTay lor’ s cl ai m . Al th o ugh the cour t m enti ons that i t hel d a h ea ringi n w hi ch Prusa k te st i fi ed , thi s r efer en ce a ppea r s o nl y i n the c o nt ex t o fthe tr i al j udg e’ s des cr i pti o n o f th e ty pes o f ev i den ce he co nsid er ed . Sta n d in g a lon e, su c h a sp ar se d ec isio n d ev oid o ff a c t u a l ma t t e r c a n n o ts u p p o r tth e I l l i n o i s S u p r e me Court’ s dete rm i nati on o fan i m pli ci t cr edibi l i ty fi nd i ng. M or eo ve r , th e Illino is Su p re m e C ou rtu n re as on ab ly ass um ed that the tr i al cour t necess ar i l y found that Pr usak te st ifie d c re d ibly w h en it rejec te d T ay lor’ s c laim . Re c all tha ti n o r de r t o e s tab l i s h a v i o l a t i o n o fh i s S i xth Am e nd

m e n t ri gh ts un d er Sul l i van , Tayl orhad to sho w : ( 1) his i nt er es ts a nd tho se o fhis b r o th erwer e i n c o nfl i ct; a nd ( 2) the confl i ct a dvers el y a ffecte d Prusak’ s per f or m ance. Sul l i van , 446 U .S. at 3 49 . U n d er th es e c irc u m st an c es , a rej ecti on o fa Sul l i van cl ai m can m ean o ne ofthr ee thi ngs: ( 1) a peti ti onerhas not shown thathi s inter es ts di ver ged f r o m th o s e o fa c o d e fe n d a n tr e p r e s e n t e d b y th e s a me att or ney; ( 2) a pe ti ti onercannotdem onst ra te an adver se26 N o. 12

- 2632

This c ase pres ents an ent ir el y d ifferent s et ofci rcum st ances 3 thanthatc onfro nt i ng the Su p rem e Cour ti n L a V a llee v . D elle 

### (continued...) effect regard less ofw he th er a confli ct ex is t e d ; or (3) a p e t i tio n er h as sh ow n a c on flict of in te re st bu t h is c laim sti l l f ai l s be cause h e cannot dem onst ra te an adver se effect. A m er e deni alo fa S u l l i van cl a i m, w i th o u ts o me i nd i cati on o fthe gr ounds up on wh i ch i t i s ba sed, cannot supp or t a n i nfe re nce that the co urt re l i ed so l el y upon a l ack ofadver se effect. The a r g um en ts o fthe pa r ti es a t th e ev i den ti ar y heari ng als o d em on st r a te th e p ro b lem at ic n at u re of th e Illino is S upr eme Co ur t’ s as su m pti o n. Al th o ug h the I l l i no i s S upr eme Co ur t be l i ev ed th atthe di spu te b ef ore the po st co nv i cti o n t r i alc o ur t so l ely r ev o l ve d a r o und the

“ a dv e r s e e ffe c t ” p o r t i o n o fthe Sul l i van i nquir y, thi s was not the o nl y contes ted is sue at the heari ng. T he p ar ti es al so pr es en te d c o nfl i ct i nge vi den ce a nd a r g um en t co nc er ni ng w hetherthe re specti ve i nter est s o fthe bro ther s were at odds. Giv en the two- pronge d nature ofthe S u l l i v an te st a n d th at th e p ar tie s c on te st ed bo th th e t h re sh old confl i ct o fi nter estco nd i ti on a nd the “ad ve rs e e ffect” depend en tn e c e s s a ryco nd i ti on, the tr i alco urt’ s unador ned denia l o f t he cl ai m cannotsupport an i m pli ed f actual f i nd i n go n th e “ a d v e r s e e ffe c t ” i s s u e . U n d e r th e c i r c u mstan ces, w e con clud e tha t the I ll inois Sup rem e C ou rt i ncor re ctl y found that the tr i alco urt m ade a cre dibi l i ty fi nd i ng i n concl ud i ng tha t Pr usak’ s r epres entat i on was not advers el y a ffecte d by th e c on fl i ct o fi nter estbetw een T ay lor a n d L ow ell. 3N o. 12

- 2632 27



### (...continued) R ose, 410 U.S
. 690 (1973) ( per curi am )
. In that c ase , the s tat e t ri al courtcon d u cted an ev id en tiary hea ring reg ard ing the v olu nta rin es s o f a d efe n d a n t’s co n fes sio n s a n d a fte r a n “e xt en siv e[] s um m ar [ y] ” o fthe c onfl i c t i ng e vi d en ce c onc l uded, “thatthe res pecti ve conf es si ons t o the polic e and d is tr ic t att orney w ere, in al l res pects , voluntary[

. ] ” Id. at 69 0. Th e Seco nd C ircu it granted habeas re li efbecau se the st ate court f ail ed to m ake a c re di bi l i t y fi ndi ng without whic h “i t c oul d not t el l whethe r the s t a t e c ou r t s c r e di ted [pe t i t i on e r ’ s s t or y ofc oe r c i ve m e tho ds used to obtai n his s tat em ents ] but st il l held thes e t o have been vol unt ar y, a c onc l us i on t o whi c h we woul d notag re e, ” o r per m i s s ibl y c re di t ed e vi denc e t o the c ontr ar y a nd f ound the co n fes sio n to b e v o l u n t a ry . Id. at 694. The Sup rem e Court rev ersed , con clu d ing tha t “it can scarcely b e d o u b t e d fro m its w ri tt en opinion that r es pon dent’ s f actual cont enti ons were res olved againsthim

. ” Id. a t 6 9 2
. Th e Co ur t r e m i nd e d f ederal habe as c our t s thatthe y a re t o pr es um e “thatthe s t at e t ri erof f ac tappl i ed c or re c ts t anda rds offede ra l l aw t o the f ac t s ” a nd co u ld n o t m ist a k e si le n ce for le g a l e rr o r. Id. at 694. Unl i ke he re , th e c l ai m i n D el l e R ose con cern ed on e d iscrete issue: w he the r the statem en ts w ere g iv e n v olu nta rily o r no t. W he n c om pet ing te s t i m ony i s pr es en t ed o n a s i ngl e i s s ue decided i n the gov ernm ent’ s f avor, a fed eral habeas c ourt c an i m pl y a c re di bi l i t y fi ndi ng i n f avorofthe gove rn m en tfro m the s t at e c our t ’ s dec i s i on. Her e, ho wever, the r es ol ut i on of T a y lo r’ s cl aim requi red res oluti on of two i ss ues that were bot h c o n t e s t e d a t th e t r i a l c o u r t l e v e l

. I n a dd i t i o n, we a re no t c onc er ne d with w he the r the pos t c onvi c t i on c our tappl i ed the inco r r e c t sta nd ard in reso lv ing T ay lor’s claim ; w e sim p ly cannot dis ce rn the part ofthe prop er fram ew ork up on w hich the cou rt b ased its ru ling

. M or eo v er, the s t a t e t r i al co u rt in 

### (continued...)28 N o. 12

- 2632



### (...continued) D el l e R ose p ro v id ed a leng thy d iscussio n o f t he relev an t ev id en c e a n d exp lain ed the leg al g ro u nd on w hich it ba sed its d ecision t o a l l evi at e any doubtas t o the bas i s f or i t s dec i s i on. The pos t c onvi c t i on t ri a l c o u r t ’ s de c i s i o n c o n t ai ns no s uc h di s c us s i on. N o r c anwe ac ce pt th e alterna ti ve c o nt en ti o n tha t th e I l l i no i s S up r e me Co ur tma de a n a pp e l l a t e c r e dib i l i ty fi nd i ng i n Pru sak’ s f avo r. A federa l habea s co urt m ust acco rd defer ence to fi nd i ngs offactm ade by st ate appel l ate c ou rt s. SeeSum nerv. M ata , 449 U
. S. 539, 545-46 ( 1 9 8 1 ); M iranda v. Le ibach , 394 F.3d 984 , 999-1000 ( 7th Cir. 2005). B u t in t h is c as e t h e Illino is Su p re m e C ou rtex p re ss ly disc l ai m ed m aki ng anycr edibil i ty fi nd i ng and i nstea d r el i ed o n a pur po r te d i m pl i ci t cr edibi l i tyfi ndi ngb y the p o s t c o n v i c t i o n t r i a l c o u r t
. A s th e I l l i n o i s S u p r e me C ou rtst at ed in it s o p in ion ,"[c ]re d ibilit y i s n ot, of itse lf, a que st i o n f o r a c o ur t o fr ev i ew . . . [ r ] athe r, i n a postco nvi ction evi denti ar y hea ri ng, the ci rcui t co urt, w hi ch saw and he ar d the w i tness es, i s i n a bett erposi ti on th ana r ev i ew ing co ur t to e ng ag e i n f ac t- fi ndi nga nd cre dibi l i ty deter m i nations. ” Taylo r, 93 0 N
. E.2 d at 9 73 ( i nt erna l quo ta ti o n mar k s an d c i ta ti o ns o m i tt ed)

. Pur su an t to th is an alytical fram ew ork, th e I ll inois Sup rem e C o urt r efr aine d fr o m makingi ts o wn cr edibi l i tyfi ndi ng s an d li m it ed i ts r ev i ew t o the po st co nv i ct i o n t r i alc o ur t’s d ec isio n . Se ei d. ( “I nd eed, the ci rcui t co urt’ s cr edibi l i ty deter m i nati on i s par ti cul ar l y j usti fi ed.

. . . ”)
. Fur ther m or e, th e facttha t th e I l l i no i s S upr eme Co ur t r ej ec te d Ta y l o r ’s i nv i t a t i o n t o p e r f o r m de n o v o r e v i ew of the f a c t s l e nd sN o. 12

- 2632 29

a d d itio n al s u p p or t t o ou r c on c lu sio n . Id. a t9 7 0
. I n s t e a d, th e c o ur t pe r f o r med man i fe s t e r r o r r e v i e w o f the tr i al co ur t’ s dec i si on, a s ta nda r d tha t r equi r es the r ev i ewi ng cour t t o re f ra i n fro m “s ubsti tut[ i ng] i ts j ud gm ent forthat of t h e t ria l co u rtreg ar d in g t h e c re d ibilit y of w itn e ss es .” Peop l e v. D ele on , 882 N .E .2d 99 9, 10 05 (Ill . 200 8); see also Wrink les v. B uss , 537 F.3d 80 4, 8 18 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( fi ndi ng th atI ndi an a S upr eme Co ur t m ade no f actua l fi ndi ng when th e co ur t dec l i ne d to “ sa y i t was e ng ag i ngi n a deno vo r e - we i g h i n go fth e e v i d e n c e ” )
. U n d e r th e c i r c u mstan ces, w e are con vince d th at th e I ll inois Sup rem e C ou rt di d no t m ak e ana ppel l at e cr edibi l i tyfi ndi ngo n the q u es tio n of P ru sa k’ s m ot iva tio n for re fu sin g t o c all Tayl or ’ s witnesse s. Inligh t o f th e a b o v e, w e c on c lu d e t h at th e Illino is S upr eme Co urt’s dec i si o n o n the a dve r se e ffec t que st i o n, as i t was bas ed so l el y o n a no n-e xi ste nt cr edibi l i ty fi nd i ng by the postco nvi cti on tr i al cour t, w as base d on an unr ea so nabl e det er m i na ti o n o fthe f ac ts i n l i g hto fthe r e c o r d

. 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 2 )
. T h e I l l i n o i s S u p r e me C ou rth ad n o fa c t u al fin d in gs be for e itth at w ou ld su p p or t i ts concl usi on that Pr usak’ s per f or m ance di d not suffer a s a re sul t o fthe confl i ct o fi nter estbetw een T a y l o r a n d L o we l l

. F u r th e r mo r e , th e I l l i n o i s S u p r e me Cou r t di d no t per f o r m an i nde pen den t ev al ua ti o n of the e v i d e n c e . We th e r e f o r e f i n d th a tth e I l l i n o i s S u p r e me Cou rt ’s deter m i nati on was notsupporte d by the cl ear an d co n vin c in g w eig h t o f th e e v i d en c e b efo re it. See Goudy, 60 4 F
. 3d at 399- 400.30 N o. 12

- 2632 C. D i st r i ct CourtM ust D et erm i ne W hetherConfl i ctof I nter estA dver sel y Aff ect ed Prusak’s Perf orm ance E ve n though the I l l i noi s S up re m e Cour t’ s deci si on unr ea so nabl y a ppl i ed S upr eme Co ur t l aw i n fin di ngno c on flict of in te re st an d res te d its ad ve rs e e ffec t a n aly sis up on a n unreas onabl e f actuald eterm i nati on, the questio n o f w h et h er P ru sa k’s p er for m an c e w as ad ve rs ely affecte d by the co nfl i ct r em ai ns unres olve d . Despi te ho l di nga n e v i de nt i a r y h e a r i ng, the I l l i no i s p o s t c o nv i cti on t ri alco urt re f ra i ned f ro m m aki ng anyfi nd in gs of f act on the adver se effect ques tio n that would pro vi de a basi s f ordefer ence. Thi s f actu al voi d then f ound it s way i nto the I l l i noi s S up re m e Cour t’s op i ni on. W i thout such a fi nd i ng, we are l eft with an am b iguous re cor d that precl ud es our indep endent deter m i nati on o fthi s pi vot al questi on. I n thes e ci rcum sta nces, we si m plycann ot be cer tai n w hether or not Tayl or i s “i n custo dy i n vio latio n ofthe Consti tuti on o r l aw s o r tr eat i es of the U ni ted S t a t e s ” a nd the r e f o r e e nt i t l e d t o hab e a s r e l i e f

. 28 U. S
. C. § 2254 (a). So we m ust r em and thi s ca se to the di str i ct c ourtf oran evi denti ar y hea ring o n w hetherthe confl i ct o fi nter est bet wee n the t wo b r o th er s adv er se l y a ffec te d Pr us ak’s p er for m an c e. “A st at e c ou rt ’s m ist ak e in su m m a r ily rej ec tin g a p et itio n, i.e., wi th o utful l y e va l ua ting confl i c tin g evi dence on disputed f actuali ssues , does not necess ar i l y m ean the p etit i on i s ul ti m ate l y e nti tl ed to re l i ef
. ” M os l ey v . At ch i s on , 6 89 F.3d 838 , 842 (7th C ir. 2012). I nstea d, w e m ust r em and “i n si tuati ons l i ke these because the sta te cour t d i d not m ake a cri ti calf actualN o. 12

- 2632 31 fin d in g t o w hi ch w e m ay defe r. ” St i t t s v. Wi l s on , 7 1 3 F. 3d 887, 895-96 (7th C ir. 2013). Suc h a resu lt i s con s is ten t w ith th e Sup rem e C ou rt’s dec i si o n i n C ullen v. P inh o lster, 13 1 S
. Ct. 1388 (2 011) , wh i ch he ld that“ r ev i ew un der§ 2 25 4( d) ( 1) i s l i m i te d t o the r ec o r d tha t was b efo r e th e st at e co ur t th ata dj udi ca te d the c l a i m o n the me r i ts. ” Id. at13 98. I nd eed, J usti ce Br eye r re cogni zed th at an ev i denti ar y hea ri ng would be necessar y in a c i rcum sta nce s i m i l arto thatpre sent i n thi s ca se: [ I ] fthe sta te- cour t r ej ecti on r est ed on o nl y o ne o f seve ra l re l ate d federa l gr ounds ( e.g., th at cou ns el’ s as si st an ce w as no t “ina dequa te ”) , the n, i fthe federa l co urt fou nd thatthe sta te cour t’ s deci si on i n re spect to the g ro und i t deci ded vi ol ate d (d) , an (e) hear i ng m i ght b e nee ded to co nsi der o ther r e l a t e d p a r t s o fth e w h o l e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c l a i m ( e.g., w hetherthe counsel ’ s “ i nadequ ate ” a ssi sta nce w as also prejud ici al)

. Id. at14 12 (B re ye r, J., co n c u rrin g in p ar t a n d d iss en tin g in p ar t). O n rem a n d , th e d ist ric t c ou rtsh ou ld co n d u c t a n ev identi ar y hea ring to deter m i ne w hetherthe confl i ct o f i nter est advers el y affecte d Pr usak’ s re prese ntati on of Tayl orsu c h that Tayl or ’ s S i xth A m endm ent r i ght t o counselwas vi ol ate d. I fthe evi dence s how s that Pr usak re f ra i ned fr om pre senting Tayl or ’ s witnesse s f orfearthat the S tat e would ca l l them at L ow ell ’ s j ury tr i al, then Prusakw ou ld h ave l abor ed und eran a ctualco nfl i ct o f i nter est i n vi ol ati on of Tayl or ’ s Si xth A m endm en t rights. If, h o w ev er , Pr u sa k m ad e t h is d ec isio n ba se d u p on h is32 N o. 12

- 2632

ev al ua ti o n o fthe wi tn es se s’ c r edibi l i tya nd the i r v al ue to Tayl or ’ s ca se and w i thout re gar d to thei r p ot enti al harm to Low ell ’ s inter est s, no const i tuti onalvi ol ati on wo ul d h a v e o c c ur r e d.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forthe abov e- sta ted r eas ons, we R EV ERSE the dist ri ct c o ur t ’ s de ni a l o fT a y l o r ’ s p e t i ti on and R EMA ND for fur th erpr o ce eding s co ns i st en t wi tho pi ni o n.

7- 3- 13