Case Name: Edward Maurice COOPER, also known as Hamid Abdul Wadud, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gothriel J. LAFLEUR, Commissioner of Corrections, MN, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-04-04
Citations: 7 F. App'x 539
Docket Number: No. 00-2372
Parties: Edward Maurice COOPER, also known as Hamid Abdul Wadud, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gothriel J. LAFLEUR, Commissioner of Corrections, MN, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, LAY, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 7
Pages: 539–539

Head Matter:
Edward Maurice COOPER, also known as Hamid Abdul Wadud, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gothriel J. LAFLEUR, Commissioner of Corrections, MN, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 00-2372.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 14, 2001.
Decided April 4, 2001.
Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, LAY, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Edward Cooper was convicted of kidnaping and sexually assaulting a twelve-year-old girl. Cooper has been deaf since childhood. His primary language is American Sign Language (ASL), although he has a rudimentary knowledge of English. Cooper alleges that his attorney, David Redburn, provided ineffective assistance of counsel for two reasons. First, Redburn, who had no experience with deaf individuals, only had an ASL interpreter present for three pre-trial meetings. These meetings constituted approximately one-third of the total pre-trial meetings. Second, Cooper argues that Redburn had a conflict of interest because the Government's first witness — the victim's mother — was represented in a divorce by one of Redburn's legal partners.
Cooper's petition for post-conviction relief was denied by the Minnesota courts. See Cooper v. State, 565 N.W.2d 27 (Minn. Ct.App.1997). Cooper then sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) in federal district court, the Honorable John R. Tunheim, presiding. The federal district court denied relief based in part on the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation. We affirm the dismissal of the petitioner's habeas claim based upon the well-reasoned opinion of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.