Document: 446 U.S. 335 100 S.Ct. 1708 64 L.Ed.2d 333 Julius T. CUYLER, Superintendent, etc., et al., Petitioners,v.John SULLIVAN. No. 78-1832. Argued Feb. 20, 1980. Decided May 12, Syllabus * Two privately retained lawyers represented respondent and two others charged with the same murders. Respondent, who was tried first, made no objection to multiple representation. The defense rested at close of prosecutor's case, convicted. codefendants later were acquitted separate trials. Respondent then sought collateral relief under Pennsylvania law, alleging that he had not received effective assistance counsel because his conflicting interests. After a hearing which both testified, Court Common Pleas denied relief. Supreme affirmed, finding representation concluding decision rest reasonable trial tactic. next habeas corpus in Federal District Court, but court accepted Court's conclusion respondent's lawyer did represent other defendants further concluded adduced evidence conflict interest. Appeals for Third Circuit reversed. It held participation all three trials established as matter law defendants, possibility among interests by these violation Sixth Amendment right counsel. Held: 1. exceed proper scope review when it rejected undertaken court's mixed determination fact covered 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), provides state after on merits factual issue shall be presumed correct. Pp. 341-342. 2. A criminal trial, proceeding initiated conducted State itself, is an action within meaning Fourteenth Amendment. If defendant's does provide adequate legal guaranteed Amendment, serious risk injustice infects itself. When obtains conviction through such unconstitutionally deprives defendant liberty. Thus, there merit petitioner's claim failings cannot basis federal 342-345. 3. entitled upon showing failed inquire into potential conflicts interest possible 345-350. (a) requires investigate timely objections But unless knows or reasonably should know particular exists, itself need initiate inquiry propriety Under circumstances this imposed affirmative duty inquire. 345-348. (b) Unless fails afford objects opportunity show impermissibly imperil fair reviewing presume resulted ineffective In must demonstrate actual adversely affected adequacy 348-350. (c) insufficient impugn conviction. order establish lawyer's performance. P. 350. 593 F.2d 512, vacated remanded. Steven H. Goldblatt, Philadelphia, Pa., petitioners. Marilyn J. Gelb, respondent. Mr. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 question presented whether prisoner may obtain writ potentially 2 John Sullivan indicted Gregory Carchidi Anthony DiPasquale first-degree murders Gorey Rita Janda. victims, labor official companion, shot death Gorey's second-story office Philadelphia headquarters Teamsters' Local 107. Francis McGrath, janitor, saw building just before shooting. They appeared awaiting someone, they encouraged McGrath do work another day. ignored their suggestions. Shortly afterward, arrived went office. heard what sounded like firecrackers exploding rapid succession. Carchidi, room where working, abruptly directed leave say nothing. hastily complied. returned about 15 minutes later, gone. victims' bodies discovered morning. 3 lawyers, G. Fred DiBona A. Charles Peruto, throughout proceedings followed indictment. different medical examiner's inquest, thereafter from could pay own lawyer.1 At time object first come trial. against him entirely circumstantial, consisting primarily McGrath's testimony. Commonwealth's without presenting any evidence. jury found guilty fixed penalty life imprisonment. Sullivan's post-trial motions failed, affirmed equally divided vote. Commonwealth v. Sullivan, Pa. 419, 286 A.2d 898 (1971).2 codefendants, DiPasquale, 4 petitioned Post Conviction Hearing Act, Pa.Stat.Ann., Tit. 19, 1180-1 seq. (Purdon Supp.1979-1980). He alleged, claims, been five days hearings, judge presided 5 Peruto recollections roles defendants. testified "associate counsel" each App. 32a. recalled chief DePasquale, merely assisted also gave accounts defense. said testify even though very weak case. remembered "want[ed] go I thought we would only exposing [defense] witnesses coming up." Id., 57a. deferred lawyers' present testimony suggested preferred take stand cross-examination might have disclosed extramarital affair. Finally, claimed rebut Carchidi's statement 6 second direct appeal adequately appeal. Pet. Cert. 5F. pass directly interest, fully advised testify. 7F. All claims reserved consideration new 7 original denial 472 129, 371 468 (1977). concluded, "no dual true sense term." 161, A.2d, 483. resting tactic 162, 483-484. 8 Having exhausted remedies, United States Eastern Pennsylvania. petition referred Magistrate, however, that, assuming representation, post revealed 5C-8C. 9 ex rel. Cuyler, 512 (1979). established, recognized " 'is tantamount . .' reversal whenever makes 'some prejudice, however remote 519, quoting Walker States, 422 374, 375 (CA3) (per curiam ), cert. denied, 399 u.s. 915, 90 2219, 26 573 (1970). See Hart Davenport, 478 203, 210 (CA3 1973). acknowledged case "would legitimate tactical if independent counsel."3 Nevertheless, alone raised sufficient prove rights. support its Peruto's admission concern judgment To give weight DiBona's contrary testimony, held, require prejudice." F.2d, 522.4 10 We granted certiorari, 444 823, 44, 62 30 (1979), consider recurring issues left unresolved Holloway Arkansas, 435 475, 98 1173, 55 426 (1978). now vacate remand. II 11 outset, exceeded Petitioners factfinding presumption correctness 2254(d). 12 Section 2254(d) "a issue, competent jurisdiction [and] evidenced written finding, opinion, reliable indicia, correct" applicant can one enumerated causes exception. holding fall statute rather than fact.5 13 Townsend Sain, 372 293, 83 745, 770 (1963), examined distinction between applies precursor noted phrase "issues fact" refers "to are termed basic, primary, historical facts: facts 'in recital external events credibility narrators U.S., 309, n. 6, S.Ct., 755, Brown Allen, 344 443, 506, 73 397, 446, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953) (opinion Frankfurter, J.). Findings played defenses sense. those engage application principles Cf. Brewer Williams, 430 387, 403-404, 1232, 1241-1242, 51 424 (1977); Neil Biggers, 409 188, 193, 3, 93 375, 379, 34 401 (1972). That open attack court. 14 carefully recited codefendants. prepared consultation defense, important 518-519. fact, transcript shows 265a. agree existence III turn alleged conduct involve action.6 win participated fundamental protected right. Argersinger Hamlin, 407 25, 29-33, 92 2006, 2008-2010, 32 530 hampered advocacy. allege officials knew known decide failure render so fundamentally unfair violate 16 This decisions Lisenba California, 314 219, 236-237, 280, 289-290, 86 166 (1941); Moore Dempsey, 261 86, 90-91, 43 265, 266, 67 543 (1923). much Gideon Wainwright, 335, 792, 799 face felony charges has due process law. offense able invoke procedural substantive safeguards distinguish our system justice, 344, 796; see Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 467-468, 58 1019, 1024, 82 1461 (1938). supra, 2008-2010.7 17 Our make clear inadequate satisfy applicable plea ground "reasonably advice." McMann Richardson, 397 759, 770-771, 1441, 1448-1449, 25 763 (1970); Tollett Henderson, 411 258, 267, 1602, 1608, 36 235 (1973). Furthermore, procedures restrict put abridge Brooks Tennessee, 406 605, 612-613, 1891, 1895, 358 (1972) (requiring witness); Ferguson Georgia, 365 570, 593-596, 81 756, 768-770, 783 (1961) (prohibiting examination defendant). Geders 425 80, 96 1330, 47 592 (1976); Herring New York, 853, 95 2550, 45 (1975). more appoint indigent prevents conducting persons incarceration defend themselves assistance. 18 respect disarms contention retain less protection whom appoints assume confidence most counsel, appointed, will protect rights accused. experience teaches some cases, vital guarantee little often uninformed reduce forfeit entitlement constitutional protection.8 Since State's implicates conviction, drawing appointed deny equal justice choose lawyers.9 IV 19 last raises expressly 483-484, 1178. party lodges objection. mere warrants deprived 20 Holloway, single public defender refused appointment despite repeated assertions clients conflicted. forced whose required 481-482, 1177. Given respond objections, actually existed. simply error endangered 483-487, 1178-1180. 21 courts nothing precedents suggests inquiries every case.10 Defense ethical obligation avoid representations advise promptly arises during course trial.11 Absent special circumstances, therefore, either entails knowingly accept exist.12 Indeed, 485-486, 1179, necessarily rely large measure good faith "An 'attorney representing best position professionally ethically determine exists probably develop trial.' 485, Davis, 110 Ariz. 29, 31, 514 P.2d 1025, 1027 inquiry.13 22 Nothing indicates provision significantly reduced divergence No participant ever objected opening argument outlined compatible view none connected Brief 7. afraid call needed Seeid., 8-9. noted, counsel's critical response weakness circumstantial prosecutor. 521, 10. On facts, conclude B 23 reaffirmed gives rise 482, inheres almost instance opportunity, Such preclude cases '[A] COMMON DEFENSE GIVES STRENGTH AGAINST ATTAck.' id., 482-483, 1178, Glasser 315 60, 92, 457, 680 (1942) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). 24 performance.14 example, record showed cross-examine prosecution witness linked crime resist presentation arguably inadmissible 72-75, 465-467. omissions desire diminish jury's perception codefendant's guilt. "struggle serve masters [could not] seriously doubted." 75, 467. impaired Glasser's reversed Dukes Warden, 250, 1551, (1972), contrasting situation. pleaded advice Dukes' unrelated charge. learned leniency arguing cooperation police induced plead guilty. argued infected plea. 'nothing indicate involuntary unintelligent.' 256, 1554, 161 Conn. 337, 288 58, (1971). identify lapse unconstitutional never harmless error. Once indulge nice calculations amount prejudice" attributable conflict. demonstrated "right counsel." 76, prejudice 487-491, 1180-1182. until actively interests, predicate Glasser, 465-467.15 C 27 shown involved hold rights, believes prevail standard. emphasizes reflected reluctance expose petitioner, hand, points himself wished taking stand. weigh contentions standard, remanded consistent opinion. So ordered. 29 BRENNAN, concurring Part result. III, ante, 342-345, involves thus corpus. cannot, join 31 (1978), settled encompasses attorney owe duties While usually share choose, choice always knowing intelligent. judge, play positive role ensuring intelligently. delay problem, Constitution protects attorneys fail consider, ignore problems. "Upon rests seeing solicitude essential accused 71, 465, (1942). "While waive waiver clearly determined court, fitting appropriate appear record." 1023, principle honored active assuring threatens imposition find out "two [who] jointly joined .," use language proposed Rule Criminal Procedure 44(c).1 probable practical virtually instances joint charging papers appearances filed attorneys. American Bar Association's standards ABA Project Standards Justice, Function Trial Judge 3.4(b) (App.Draft 1972), framed premise judges readily ascertain 33 "[A] representation." Ante, 348. Therefore, discovery ensure unwittingly given up necessary since how raise them. surely receiving result owed safely silence knowledgeable proceed jointly. least affirmatively creates hazards representation.2 Had intelligent standard Where voluntarily chosen fair, alleges growing conflict, "that 349. Here, forgo believe respondent, significant conflict,3 suffered. remand allow petitioners demonstrating 35 MARSHALL, part dissenting part. properly obtained provided Accordingly, Parts I, II, 37 believe, "so grave," Function, Standard 4-3.5(b) (App.Draft, 2d ed. 1979), preliminary product defendants' informed choice. therefore BRENNAN warn risks choice.1 38 dissent formulation determining violated holds absence performance." attorney's performance differed client, inconsistent previous cases. test unduly harsh, incurably speculative well. actual, relevant existed proceedings. did, affirm Appeals.2 39 "the unhindered interests." 483, 5, "[T]he 'Assistance Counsel' contemplates untrammeled unimpaired requiring simultaneously 70, "[t]he [the clients] brought home court" means 40 Because simultaneous defendant, conflict.3 An negates loyalty constitutionally expect receive attorney. 41 Moreover, unnecessary,4 impossible task. As emphasized : 42 "[I]n evil—it bears repeating—is advocate finds compelled refrain doing resulting undertake certain tasks, sentencing available difficult intelligently impact client. And assess options, tactics, negotiations impossible." 490-491, 1182 (emphasis original). emphatically suggestion For reasons, futile attempt duties. 44 credited reason restrictive reading usual unwilling supportive thereby impugning professional efforts. many effects discernible record. plain me, unable changed conduct. articulated chose adverse Arguably, concerning constraint affected. 350 (defendant interests"). mine far apart all. syllabus constitutes Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 321, 282, 287, 50 499. paid funds friends disclose source balance fee, money came family. 518, 1979). petitions reargument. 180, 468, 492 (1977) (Pomeroy, Meanwhile, pro se dismissed exhaust remedies. 515, 4. evenly Garth, Judges Adams Rosenn joined, rehearing en banc. 524. solely 339. resolved benefit finding. undertook statements appellate "determination[s] issue" Compare Velleca 523 1040, 1041-1042 (CA1 1975) Hill Nelson, 466 1346, 1348 (CA9 1972) ). Although Appeals, parties briefed resolution "predicate resolution" Vance Terrazas, 252, 258-259, 540, 544, 461 (1980), address it. Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. University Illinois Foundation, 402 313, 320, 91 1434, 1438 788 generally R. Stern & E. Gressman, Practice 6.27, pp. 458-461 (5th 1978). Fitzgerald Estelle, 505 1334, 1345-1346 (CA5 1974) (en banc) (Godbold, part), 1011, 2636, 675 (1975); West Louisiana, 1026, 1032-1034 1973), remanded, 510 363 (1975) banc). Polur, Retained Counsel, Assigned Counsel: Why Dichotomy?, A.B.A.J. 254, 255 (1969). 211 (1973): "A rule apply fourteenth amendment assigned produce anomaly non-indigent, one, effect defendant—confinement trial—is retained." 44(c) district "shall personally including (App. Draft 1972). Several Courts already supervisory power similar inquiries. Waldman, 579 649, 651-652 1978); DeBerry, 487 448, 452-454 (CA2 1973); Cox, 580 317, 321 (CA8 1978), 439 1075, 99 851, 59 (1979); Lawriw, 568 1977), 969, 1607, 56 60 (1978); cf. Ford 126 U.S.App.D.C. 346, 348-349, 379 123, 125-126 (1967). promulgation suggests, exercise desirable practice. Schwarzer, Dealing Incompetent Counsel—The Judge's Role, Harv.L.Rev. 633, 653-654 (1980). Circuits explicitly conflicts, Steele, 576 111 (CA6) 928, Mavrick, 601 921, 929 (CA7 recent Second otherwise, Colon Fogg, 603 403, Code Professional Responsibility, DR 5-105, EC 5-15 3.5(b) 1971). Seventy percent offices responding survey reported strong policy undertaking Forty-nine Lowenthal, Joint Representation Cases: Critical Appraisal, Va.L.Rev. 939, 950, private bar alert importance avoiding Geer, Multiple Defendants: Conflicts Interest Responsibilities Attorney, Minn.L.Rev. 119, 152-157 961-963. Kidding, 560 1303, 1310 (CA7), 434 872, 217, 54 151 Mandell, 525 671, 675-677 1975), 423 1049, 774, 46 637 supra 11, 145-146. Medel, 1305, 1312-1313 1979); Foxworth 516 1072, 1076-1077 1975). substantial majority contend Lovano, 420 769, 773 (CA2), 1071, 1515, 694 Atkinson, 565 1283, 1284-1285 (CA4 436 944, 2845, 785 1077; Thacker Bordenkircher, 590 640, 642 (CA6), 442 912, 61 278 677-678; 321-323; Kutas, 542 527, 529 1976), 429 1073, 810, 790 Carrigan, 1053, 1056 1976) (burden proof shifts conflict). Comment, Conflict Interests Co-Defendants, 68 J.Crim.L. C. 226, 231-232 Proposed provides: "Whenever pursuant 8(b) 13, associated practice appears cause likely arise, measures Congress postponed effectiveness December 1, 1980, until, extent approved by, Act Congress, whichever earlier. Pub.L. 96-42, Stat. 326. Though 44(c), model, form. charged, consolidated, attorney, jeopardize fidelity kind inquiry. One, First Circuit, duty, opposed specific form inquiry, mandated. 653 successfully carried burden well strategy." 521 based holding, part, partly want upcoming Also, having which, while exculpating inculpate Ibid. 522. 347, codefendants'] interests," ibid., arose, precisely not, course, prevent subsequently raising dangers infringing privilege self-incrimination maintain confidentiality strategy foreclose type detailed waiver. place early stage anticipated. 145 cast terms "potential interest," 522 explicit analysis premised, "[w]e reject sworn injected improper considerations attorney-client relationship." demonstrates "Conflict interests" term used seldom defined. usage, remained essentially unchanged Canons Ethics 1908, ordinarily meant term, adopt here. "if another." Responsibility forbids lawyer] differing client consent each. Disciplinary 5-105(A)-(B) (1976). superseded (1937), spoke "conflicting "differing defined Canon 6: represents when, behalf oppose." materials define However, Glasser' s emphasis corresponding empirical 226 There then, diverge point if, material action. it, "Mr. feels Kretske get idea together. ." 68, 464. Whether is, irrelevant claim. discuss "birds feather flock lawyer," Greer, 136, plainly considered Kretske.

Category: 0