Task: songer_treat

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Your task is to determine the disposition by the court of appeals of the decision of the court or agency below; i.e., how the decision below is "treated" by the appeals court. That is, the basic outcome of the case for the litigants, indicating whether the appellant or respondent "won" in the court of appeals.

HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge.
Petitioner Church appeals an order of the district court, denying with prejudice his petition for a writ of habeas corpus sought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Church seeks habeas relief following his conviction on a jury verdict in Hidalgo County, New Mexico, as an accessory to an armed robbery in violation of N.M.Stat.Ann. §§ 30-16-2, 30-1-13 (1978). We reverse the district court’s determination that a procedural bar precluded habeas review of some of Church’s claims; we remand for an evidentiary hearing on Church’s Sixth Amendment ineffectiveness of counsel claim and his due process claim of jury misconduct; we affirm the remaining decisions on Church’s claims.
I.
Factual and Procedural Background
On the evening of June 13, 1985, three individuals were involved in the robbery of an elderly couple, Virginia and Carl Wilson, at the couple’s home near Lordsburg, New Mexico. According to the Wilsons, one of the robbers was a man who had arrived at their home two or three days earlier requesting water for his overheated engine. Carl Wilson had accompanied the man to a jeep and then returned home without incident. The man, later identified as code-fendant Ray Hernandez, was described by the Wilsons as a Hispanic man with a fu-manchu mustache.
On the evening of the robbery, Hernandez returned to the Wilson home with a woman, later identified as Kimala Bailey. Under the pretext of a courtesy visit to introduce “his wife,” Hernandez and Bailey entered the Wilson home, whereupon Hernandez pulled a pistol on the Wilsons. After taping the Wilsons’ hands and feet, Hernandez demanded to know where they kept their turquoise and gold. Virginia Wilson turned over a box containing unprocessed gold and some old coins. Hernandez then blindfolded the Wilsons. The house was searched for valuables, and in addition to the gold and coins, cash and jewelry were taken. At some time during this search, Virginia Wilson detected through her blindfold the presence and shape of a third robber whom she heard whispering to the other two. She described the third robber as male, short and slender. The robbers left the Wilsons tied up on their beds. While leaving the Wil-sons’ driveway, the robbers’ vehicle knocked over a post and small tree. The Wilsons later freed themselves and summoned the police.
At the crime scene Hidalgo County Sheriff Darnell observed and photographed th^ee sets of footprints in the Wilson driveway. During his investigation over the next few days, Darnell, along with state policeman French, encountered Bailey and her boyfriend, Kelly Green, living at a campsite in the nearby Burro Mountains. Bailey told Darnell that on the day of the robbery a man named Brian driving a yellow jeep with a passenger named Hernandez had stopped at their campsite. At the mention of the jeep, French recalled that on June 1st, two weeks before the robbery, he had observed two men and a yellow jeep parked along a dead end road, less than a mile from the Wilson home. French had run and filed a registration check on the jeep. It was registered to Church and his fiance, Laura Wilson. Subsequently Darnell also learned that on the evening of June 12th, another police officer had seen a yellow jeep with a black top, registration unknown, standing empty on the same road, within a quarter mile of the Wilson home.
Using the registration address, Darnell phoned the Ruidoso police and asked them to locate Church and Laura. The two agreed to come into the Ruidoso police station, and at Darnell’s request, they were fingerprinted and photographed. Over the phone, Church told Darnell that he had been prospecting in the Lordsburg area, but knew nothing about a robbery or a Hispanic man with a fu-manchu mustache. Darnell returned to the campsite and photographed Green and Bailey. He also compared Bailey’s footprints to those photographed at the Wilson home and found them to be similar.
After seeing Bailey’s photo, the Wilsons identified Bailey as the woman who robbed them. Darnell brought Bailey and Green into the station. Bailey confessed, implicating herself, Hernandez and Church. In her statement, Bailey said that on the morning of the robbery, she and Green had first met Hernandez and Church, who arrived at the campsite looking for an old prospecting claim belonging to Church’s grandfather. According to Bailey, the two drove off in the jeep, but returned later for dinner. She said that after dinner, Church and Hernandez recruited her to help rob the Wilsons. Green refused to participate and stayed behind. Bailey said that during the robbery, Church waited in the jeep outside until the Wilsons were blindfolded, but then entered and did most of the searching. After Bailey finished her statement, Green turned over to the police the two jackets which the Wilsons had identified as being worn by the man and woman entering their home. Green also gave the police the Wil-sons’ gold and coin box. On this information, Church was arrested and his jeep was impounded.
Darnell came to see Church in the Ruido-so jail on July 7, 1985. Church was given Miranda warnings and he agreed to talk with Darnell. Although he initially denied involvement in the robbery, later that evening he requested that Darnell return to the jail. Darnell agreed to allow Church to speak with Laura at their home, after which Church made a taped statement confessing his participation as the third robber.
A. Trial
Church was tried before a jury in the Hidalgo County district court from March 11-13, 1986. The State’s theory was that Church’s motive for the robbery was revenge. There was evidence that Church had approached Carl Wilson in 1980, seeking information about mining property that Wilson and Church’s grandfather had claimed as business partners, years before. Wilson initially refused to disclose the location, but after Church’s repeated visits the same year, Wilson took Church to an old mining site. Nevertheless, Church still believed that Wilson had cheated Church’s grandfather by staking a claim in the Burro Mountains without his grandfather’s knowledge. As a result, Church spent considerable time searching the mountains for Wilson’s claim markers.
There was also evidence of the following facts. In 1981, Church was incarcerated in a federal prison. While there, he befriended Ray Hernandez. Upon Church’s release from prison in 1983, he resumed his search in the mountains for proof of Wilson’s alleged duplicity.
Two days before the instant robbery Church telephoned Hernandez and then picked him up in Albuquerque. The two drove in Church’s yellow jeep to the Lords-burg area. The day after the Wilson robbery, Church and Hernandez went to Church’s home where they researched the value of some coins that Church claimed to have found in the mountains. Hernandez stayed overnight and Church drove him back to Albuquerque on June 15th.
In addition to Church’s confessions, the State offered in evidence a pistol belonging to Church. The State also presented evidence that Church sold unprocessed gold to a Ruidoso jeweler and some old coins to a Roswell, N.M., coin dealer shortly after the robbery. Additionally, the State presented receipts dated shortly after the robbery showing that Church purchased a new tire for his jeep (allegedly to replace one damaged while fleeing the crime scene) and that Church wired Hernandez $82.67 via Western Union.
Church testified on his own behalf, denying any involvement in the robbery itself and asserting that he had been prospecting that night. He said he confessed to the crime only to protect Laura from Darnell’s threats to arrest her on unfounded charges and to secure Darnell’s promise to return the jeep and Laura's photos and fingerprints to her. According to Church, shortly before the robbery he had given Hernandez a ride from Albuquerque to Tularosa, N.M., where Hernandez’ brother lived. After dropping Hernandez off on June 13, Church encountered Bailey and Green outside Lordsburg. Church alleged that Bailey asked him if he knew where she could obtain some “speed.” Church gave her Hernandez’ phone number, and then went into the mountains until the following day.
Church’s defense theory was that Hernandez, Bailey and Green robbed the Wil-sons while he was gone, using information obtained from Church that the Wilsons kept gold in their home. Church further posits that Bailey accused him to protect Green, the third robber. Moreover, Church contends that Green smuggled drugs to Bailey to ensure she would not change her story. Church also explained that the gold and coins he sold were his, and that the money sent to Hernandez was to repay an earlier debt.
Both of the Wilsons testified at trial about the details of the robbery. Also, Kelly Green and Kimala Bailey testified as prosecution witnesses. In return for her testimony, Bailey received a lighter sentence for her involvement in the robbery.
B. Conviction and Post-Trial Proceedings
The jury convicted Church of a single count of accessory to an armed robbery. He was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment, followed by two years of parole. Church then appealed to the New Mexico Court of Appeals, alleging error because: (1) an involuntary confession was admitted in evidence against him; (2) the denial of his motion for a change in venue violated his right to an impartial jury; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The state appeals court rejected each of these claims and Church’s petition for certiorari to the New Mexico Supreme Court was denied without opinion. Church v. State, 104 N.M. 378, 721 P.2d 1309 (1986) (Table).
Church then filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Hidalgo County district court. In addition to the three grounds for reversal argued on his direct appeal, Church also alleged as constitutional errors that: (4) members of his jury were exposed to improper third party communications during a trial recess; (5) his trial counsel, Mr. Ogden, was ineffective due to a conflict of interests arising from his prior representation of Green, Ogden’s failure to prepare, and the trial court’s erroneous refusal to allow Church to act as co-counsel; (6) inconsistent testimony was admitted at trial in violation of due process. Accompanying the state habeas petition, Church filed motions for an evidentiary hearing and for the appointment of counsel. The state habeas court denied the motions for appointment of counsel and a hearing and ruled against Church’s petition on the merits. A pro se petition for a writ of certiorari to the state Supreme Court was denied without opinion.
Having exhausted his state remedies, Church filed the instant habeas petition in the federal district court. The petition alleges all six of the claims raised in his state habeas petition. In addition, Church filed motions for evidentiary hearings on his involuntary confession, jury misconduct and conflict of interests claims, which were denied. The petition was referred to a federal magistrate. He issued proposed findings and recommended that the petition be dismissed with prejudice on various grounds. After a de novo review of the portions objected to, the district court adopted the magistrate’s findings and recommendations in toto, and dismissed the habeas petition with prejudice. A timely notice of appeal was filed and a certificate of probable cause was issued by the district judge.
II.
Discussion
Although Church presents a number of issues, we will discuss primarily the procedural default questions, the jury misconduct claim, the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and the voluntariness of his confessions.
A. Procedural Default
The federal district court did not reach Church’s jury misconduct or due process claim concerning inconsistent testimony because it adopted the magistrate’s determination that federal habeas review was precluded by procedural default. Under the procedural default doctrine as defined in Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977), federal habeas review of a federal claim which a state court has refused to consider because of the petitioner’s noncompliance with state procedural rules is barred “absent a showing of ‘cause’ and ‘prejudice’ attendant to a state procedural waiver[.]” Id. at 87, 97 S.Ct. at 2506.
In Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 109 S.Ct. 1038, 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989), the Supreme Court created an exception to Sykes’ cause and prejudice test by extending the “plain statement” rule of Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983), to federal habeas cases. Harris held that: “a procedural default does not bar consideration of a federal claim on either direct or habeas review unless the last state court rendering a judgment in the case clearly and expressly states that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar.” 489 U.S. at 263, 109 S.Ct. at 1043 (quotations omitted). The Court also noted, in footnote, that “[t]his rule necessarily applies only when a state court has been presented with the federal claim[.]” Id. at n. 9; see also Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 299, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 1068, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989) (plurality) (noting that the Harris rule is “simply inapplicable... where the claim was never presented to the state courts”).
In applying Harris here, the magistrate looked not to the New Mexico habeas court decision, but to the earlier state court of appeals decision on direct review. Although the state habeas court had reached the merits of Church’s claims without addressing or raising a procedural default question, the federal magistrate discounted that court’s opinion because of his view that the state habeas court “did not have jurisdiction to decide those issues” due to waiver by Church of the claims. See I R., Doc. 47 at 11 n. 6; State v. Gillihan, 86 N.M. 439, 524 P.2d 1335 (1974) (holding that under New Mexico procedural rules, issues suitable for resolution by direct appeal but not there raised are waived for later state habeas petitions). Thus, the magistrate concluded that
the last state court in a position to render judgment was the court of appeals when it ruled on the merits of petitioner’s direct appeal. At that time, petitioner had not raised the issues in question at all in the state court_ Therefore, according to Teague, the Harris exception does not apply and procedural default exists.
Id. at 11-12. Finding that Church failed to establish “cause” and “prejudice” as required by Sykes, the magistrate refused to reach these claims. As noted, this ruling was adopted by the district court..
We are persuaded that the rulings of the district court and the magistrate were in error in holding two claims (the jury misconduct claim and the due process claim concerning inconsistent testimony) were precluded from federal habeas review. The Supreme Court has recently revisited the procedural bar issues in Ylst v. Nunnemaker, — U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 2590, 115 L.Ed.2d 706 (1991). There, the Court faced the question whether a California Supreme Court order denying a second habeas petition without explanation constituted a “decision on the merits” sufficient to lift the procedural bar imposed earlier on a direct appeal. The Ninth Circuit had held that the state ruling did constitute a decision on the merits due to a presumption that when a federal claim is denied without explicit reliance on state grounds, the merits of the federal claim are the basis for the judgment. The Supreme Court disagreed.
The Court focused on the problem of what meaning should be attributed to “for-mulary orders” — orders stating no reasons for the rulings. The Court held that
Attributing a reason [to a formulary order is]... both difficult and artificial. We think that the attribution necessary for federal habeas purposes can be facilitated, and sound results more often assured, by applying the following presumption: where there has been one reasoned state judgment rejecting a federal claim, later unexplained orders upholding that judgment or rejecting the same claim rest upon the same ground. If an earlier opinion ‘fairly appear[s] to rest primarily upon federal law,’ Coleman, — U.S., at -, 111 S.Ct., at 2559, we will presume that no procedural default has been invoked by a subsequent unexplained order that leaves the judgment or its consequences in place. Similarly where, as here, the last reasoned opinion on the claim explicitly imposes a procedural default, we will presume that a later decision rejecting the claim did not silently disregard that bar and consider the merits.
111 S.Ct. at 2594.
As instructed by the Supreme Court, we must focus on the last state court decision explaining its resolution of Church’s federal claims. See Ylst, 111 S.Ct. at 2595. We are convinced that as used in Ylst, Harris, and Coleman v. Thompson, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2550, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991), the New Mexico habeas court decision is dispositive. Moreover, that court’s ruling on the merits of Church’s federal claims meets the Coleman condition because it “fairly appeared to rest primarily on resolution of those claims, or to be interwoven with those claims,” so that a procedural bar does not apply here. Coleman, 111 S.Ct. at 2557; Harris, 489 U.S. at 261, 109 S.Ct. at 1042; Ulster County v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 147-54, 99 S.Ct. 2213, 2219-23, 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979).
We are satisfied that the New Mexico habeas court did not invoke a procedural bar as to any claim before it. As noted, the magistrate held that the New Mexico habeas court had no jurisdiction to reach the merits of various federal claims of Church and hence disregarded its rulings on their merits. We feel this analysis is in error under the Supreme Court’s decisions and reject this approach because it is “intrusive for a federal court to second-guess a state court’s determination of state law.” Harris, 489 U.S. at 264, 109 S.Ct. at 1044. Accordingly, the magistrate and the district court here erred in failing to address Church’s claims on the basis of procedural default under New Mexico law.
B. The Due Process Claims of Jury Misconduct and Inconsistent Testimony
Church first presented his due process claim of improper juror contact to the state court in his pro se habeas petition accompanied by motions for an evidentiary hearing and for the appointment of counsel. The state habeas court denied the motions and rejected Church’s claim on the merits, stating: “[t]here is no showing that any juror ‘broke the Judge’s order not to discuss the case’, and there is no showing that any juror discussed Church and the trial with the jailer’s wife, whoever she might be.” I R., Doc. 7, Ex. I at 2, ¶ 4. The state habeas court did not hold a hearing. Church’s petition for certiorari to the New Mexico Supreme Court was denied.
In the federal district court, Church again raised this claim. Accompanying his motion for an evidentiary hearing in federal court were the affidavits of Michelle and Robert Miller, acquaintances of the defendant. See I R., Attachments to Doc. 40. According to Ms. Miller’s affidavit, during an afternoon break at Church’s trial she observed a woman that Church had identified to her as his “head jailer’s wife” speak with “some of the jurors” for about “ten minutes.” Id. Ms. Miller stated that “[although I did not hear most of the conversation, at one point I heard the woman mention Brian Church’s name.” Id. In his affidavit, Mr. Miller also claims to have observed this same woman during the same break “talking to several of the jury members.” Mr. Miller’s affidavit states, “I overheard her saying, ‘How could he (or they) do this to these old people?’ and ‘How could anybody do this?’ ” Id. Moreover, his affidavit alleges that “the jury and the victims and other spectators to the trial all mingled together during the breaks in the hallway.” Id.
The federal district court did not consider Church’s request for an evidentiary hearing on his improper juror contact claim because it found federal review precluded by procedural default. We have held that ruling was in error. And having considered the arguments of both parties on the merits of this request, we conclude that Church is entitled to the requested eviden-tiary hearing under Townsend.
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a... trial by an impartial jury... [and to] be confronted with the witnesses against him[.]” Indeed, claims of improper juror contact touch “the core of the Sixth Amendment’s right to... an impartial jury[.]” United States v. Day, 830 F.2d 1099, 1103 (10th Cir.1987); see also Stockton v. Virginia, 852 F.2d 740, 743 (4th Cir.1988) (“No right touches more the heart of fairness in a trial.”), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1071, 109 S.Ct. 1354, 103 L.Ed.2d 822 (1989).
The Supreme Court has recognized that “the remedy for allegations of juror partiality is a hearing” on the merits. See Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 215, 102 S.Ct. 940, 945, 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). So, too, we have concluded that “[w]hen a trial court is apprised of the fact that an extrinsic influence may have tainted the trial, the proper remedy is a hearing to determine the circumstances of the improper contact and the extent of prejudice, if any, to the defendant.” United States v. Hornung, 848 F.2d 1040, 1045 (10th Cir.1988) (citing Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 229-30, 74 S.Ct. 450, 451, 98 L.Ed. 654 (1954)), cert. denied sub nom., Green v. United States, 489 U.S. 1069, 109 S.Ct. 1349, 103 L.Ed.2d 817 (1989).
To date, there has been no hearing at all on Church’s claim of improper juror contact despite the allegations in the Miller affidavits. These affidavits present a sufficient showing by Church to entitle him to an evidentiary hearing under the authorities cited above. Accordingly, we remand the issue of improper juror contact to the federal district court for an evidentiary hearing.
We hold, however, that Church’s other due process claim, precluded from review below, is without merit. Church argues that the Wilsons’ statements at and before trial “were so inconsistent with each other that his rights to due process and a fair trial have been violated.” Appellants Brief at 49-50. Church cites no authority for this submission, nor does he identify specific inconsistencies for our review. We agree with the State that any inconsistencies that existed were either clarified at trial or resolved by the jury. See United States v. Beaulieu, 900 F.2d 1531, 1535 (10th Cir.) (noting that resolution of conflicting testimony is the “exclusive province of the jury”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 3252, 111 L.Ed.2d 762 (1990).
C. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Church launches a three-pronged challenge to the effectiveness of his trial counsel, alleging that counsel worked under an impermissible conflict of interests, that counsel was inadequately prepared to try the case, and that the trial court should have permitted Church to act as co-counsel because his attorney was inadequately prepared. See Appellant’s Brief at 44-48. We will address these challenges separately.
1. Conflict of Interests
At some time prior to Church’s trial, Kelly Green was arrested, tried and convicted for smuggling methamphetamine to his girlfriend, Kimala Bailey, while she was in jail awaiting trial for the instant armed robbery. See T.13 at 14:30-16:55, 3/12/86. Green’s attorney in the methamphetamine proceeding was Carlos Ogden. Ogden was later appointed to represent Church in the New Mexico robbery case following the withdrawal of Church’s first attorney, who handled the preliminary hearing.
At Church’s trial, both Green and Bailey testified for the State. Church’s defense theory was that Green was actually the “third robber” and that Bailey had implicated Church to protect Green. Consistent with this theory, Church sought to show that Green’s conviction for smuggling methamphetamine to Bailey resulted from Green’s efforts to ensure that Bailey continued to “cover” for him. See id. at 38:45-39:30, T.17 at 4:45-5:10, 3/13/86; Appellant’s Brief at 45.
In his pro se state habeas petition, Church first raised this conflict issue as part of a general attack on the effectiveness of his trial counsel. The state habeas court, implicitly denying Church’s claim, stated only: “Church claims his second attorney (Carlos Ogden?) had a conflict of interest when he represented the witness against Church. Church does not name names or tell us what he is talking about. This court is not able to devine [sic] what this is all about.” I R., Doc. 7, Ex. J. No evidentiary hearing was ever held in state court on this claim.
In the federal district court, Church specifically argued that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel because of the successive representations by Ogden of Church and Green. Church claims that Ogden was unable to adequately cross-examine Green on Green’s role as the third robber for fear of violating the attorney-client privilege. See Appellant’s Brief at 46.
The federal magistrate rejected this claim without an evidentiary hearing. First, the magistrate ruled that Church had “abandoned the issue when he sought a writ of certiorari” following denial of his state habeas petition. I R., Doc. 47 at 4. Moreover, the magistrate found the claim to be without merit because Ogden had “informed the court that he had previously represented Kelly Green in connection with Green’s smuggling dope to his girlfriend” and that Ogden “fully cross-examined Kelly Green; particularly, concerning Green’s involvement in the drug smuggling incident.” Id. at 5. In his subsequent objections to the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations, Church requested an evidentiary hearing on this matter. I R., Doc. 48 at 4, ¶ 4. The district court, in adopting the magistrate’s view, implicitly denied this request. On appeal, Church argues that the district court erred in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing on his conflict of interests claim as required by Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963).
Under Townsend, there are two steps to determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required. First, before a federal court may exercise its power in habeas corpus to conduct an evidentiary hearing, the applicant must “allege[ ] facts which, if proved, would entitle him to relief[.]” Id. at 312, 83 S.Ct. at 757. Once a claimant satisfies this initial inquiry, Townsend explains, “the federal court in habeas corpus must hold an evidentiary hearing if the habeas applicant did not receive a full and fair evidentiary hearing in the state court, either at the time of the trial or in a collateral proceeding.” Id., 372 U.S. at 312, 83 S.Ct. at 757.
Without question, Church has had no evi-dentiary hearing on this issue, either by the state or federal courts. Thus, the only question in this portion of Church’s appeal is the threshold one, whether he has alleged the requisite facts that would entitle him to relief.
The Supreme Court has declared that: “[wjhere a constitutional right to counsel exists, our Sixth Amendment cases hold that there is a correlative right to representation that is free from conflicts of interest.” Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261, 271, 101 S.Ct. 1097, 1103, 67 L.Ed.2d 220 (1981). In this circuit, we apply the conflict principles from multiple representation cases to successive representation cases involving factually related litigation. See United States v. Winkle, 722 F.2d 605, 610 (10th Cir.1983).
To establish a Sixth Amendment conflict violation, “a defendant who raised no objection at trial must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interests adversely affected his lawyer’s performance.” Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 348, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 1718, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980) (footnote omitted). Moreover, “if the defendant can show that his attorney’s previous representation of the witness adversely affected the adequacy of the defendant’s representation, then the defendant need not demonstrate prejudice to obtain relief.” Winkle, 722 F.2d at 610 (citing Cuyler).
We believe that Church has shown the existence of an “actual conflict” within the meaning of Cuyler. This showing is sufficient to entitle him to the relief sought — an evidentiary hearing — in which he might develop facts sufficient to prove that the conflict adversely affected his representation. Should he succeed, he would then be entitled to Cuyler*s presumption of prejudice.
Initially, we note that the magistrate inaccurately concluded that Church “abandoned” his conflict claim in applying to the New Mexico Supreme Court for collateral relief. In his petition for state habeas relief, Church designated the conflict of interests claim as part of his sixth ground for relief. See I R., Doc. 7, Ex. H at 2. Subsequently, Church filed a pro se petition in the New Mexico Supreme Court which omits this ground in the “Questions Presented for Review” section. Nevertheless, Church clearly raised this Sixth Amendment claim before that court by alleging in the same petition that: “Petitioner’s right to effective assistance of counsel was violated... [because of] the second attorney’s conflict of interest when attorney [sic] represented a witness against the petitioner[.]... The second attorney (Carlos Ogden) represented Kelly Green (on a drug charge) who was the co-defendant’s boyfriend who testified against petitioner [sic].” I R., Doc. 7, Ex. J at 3. Thus, this claim was not “abandoned.”
The uncontested facts of this case show an inherent, but actual, conflict of interests. At trial, Church’s defense theory sought to show that Green was the third robber, and that Green smuggled drugs to Bailey to ensure she would continue to inculpate Church. Whether one believes this theory or not, there is no dispute that Green was present during the planning of the crime and later division of the loot in his camp. Green also knew where the stolen box and robbers’ jackets had been stashed. T. 13 at 11:25-12:40, 18:50-23:20, 3/12/86. More significantly, Green himself testified on direct that Bailey “promised me that if I did that [smuggled drugs to her], she’d go ahead and give her testimony and everything, and help, which she had pretty much been doing at the time.” Id. at 15:35-15:55, 3/12/86. Thus, the record shows, without contradiction, that Green was somewhat involved with the robbers, and that his efforts to smuggle drugs to Bailey were factually related to promoting her subsequent testimony against Church at trial. Since Ogden represented Green for smuggling drugs to Bailey, the representation necessarily involved the circumstances and motivation for Green's actions — topics clearly covered by the attorney-client privilege. Absent a waiver by Green, Ogden could not fully cross-examine him in these areas about any privileged information he received.
In United States v. Bowie, 892 F.2d 1494 (10th Cir.1990), we there explained that “[w]hen defense counsel has previously represented a government witness in a related case, the primary conflict-of-interest concern is that defense counsel may not be able to effectively cross-examine the witness for fear of divulging privileged information.” Id. at 1501. Accord Winkle, 722 F.2d at 611. Here although Ogden questioned Green about his possible involvement in the armed robbery and his reasons for smuggling drugs to Bailey, there were no questions ever posed about Green’s sentence or the circumstances which led him to testify (e.g., whether a plea agreement was reached). See T.13 at 15:25-17:05, 35:30-38:10, 3/12/86; T.17 at 4:31-5:22, 3/13/86. Nor was Green closely scrutinized about the circumstances by which he was permitted to meet with Bailey while they were both in jail following Green’s arrest. T.13 at 35:38-37:45, 3/12/86. Such omissions, though possibly innocent or explainable, nonetheless demonstrate likely areas in which Ogden would be hindered in cross-examining his former client.
In Borne, we recognized that “ ‘[ajctual conflict’ and ‘adverse effect’ are not self defining phrases.” Id. at 1500. We are aware that “there is no per se rule prohibiting representation of a defendant by counsel who has previously represented a government witness in a related case[.]” Id. However, in the context of successive representations, we find it difficult to envision circumstances more fraught with inherent conflict than where an appointed attorney representing a reluctant defendant must present a defense theory inculpating the attorney’s former client, particularly where the former representation was factually intertwined with the criminal defendant’s case. See, e.g., Bowie, 892 F.2d 1502 (noting “the potential for conflict is great where there is a substantial relationship between the cases”). Here we feel that Church has demonstrated an actual conflict of interests.
We cannot dismiss Church’s claim, as did the court below, merely because the state trial court may have been aware of the former representation. First, we are unable to find support in the record for the magistrate’s determination that the trial court was informed of the details of Ogden’s former representation of Green. I R., Doc. 47 at 5. Indeed, of record, the former representation is mentioned only once. There, Ogden states, in passing, that “Kelly Green has, [sic] I represented him on that thing, and he’s gained' weight.” T.16 at 6:20-6:37, 3/12/86. The State argues and the magistrate found that the trial court was aware of the potential conflict. If this were the case, we note that Cuyler “mandates a reversal when the trial court has failed to make an inquiry even though it ‘knows or reasonably should know that a particular conflict exists.’ ” Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261, 272 n. 18, 101 S.Ct. 1097, 1104 n. 18, 67 L.Ed.2d 220 (1981) (quoting Cuyler) (emphasis in original); see Strouse v. Leonardo, 928 F.2d 548, 555 (2d Cir.1991). However, we do not believe that the circumstances were sufficient “to alert the trial court to a potential conflict[.]” Id. at 555. As a federal habe-as court we presume the propriety of state court proceedings until shown otherwise. Thus, we cannot say that the state trial court should have known of the conflict as a result of Ogden’s sole, unspecified reference to “that thing.”
In any event Ogden’s cross-examination of Green was not sufficient to cure the conflicting representation of taint. As shown by our disposition in Bowie, the mere fact that cross-examination might appear “vigorous” does not necessarily expunge this aspect of the constitutional error. See id. at 1502. Rather, the dangers inherent in successive and multiple representations do not become apparent merely by scrutinizing what the attorney did: “representation of conflicting interests is suspect because of what it tends to prevent the attorney from doing.” Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 489, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 1181, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978). The apparent “vigor” of cross-examination is but

Question: What is the disposition by the court of appeals of the decision of the court or agency below?
A. stay, petition, or motion granted
B. affirmed; or affirmed and petition denied
C. reversed (include reversed & vacated)
D. reversed and remanded (or just remanded)
E. vacated and remanded (also set aside & remanded; modified and remanded)
F. affirmed in part and reversed in part (or modified or affirmed and modified)
G. affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded; affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded
H. vacated
I. petition denied or appeal dismissed
J. certification to another court
K. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: G