Court Opinion

ID: 9377390
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-07 19:00:54.573726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:14.726975
License: Public Domain

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
                               File Name: 23a0116n.06

                                          No. 21-1497

                          UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                              FILED
                               FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT                            Mar 07, 2023
                                                                            DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
                                                        )
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                        )
        Plaintiff-Appellee,                                   ON APPEAL FROM THE
                                                        )
                                                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT
                                                        )
 v.                                                           COURT FOR THE EASTERN
                                                        )
                                                              DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
                                                        )
 RAYMOND W. ADAMS,                                      )
                                                                                     OPINION
        Defendant-Appellant.                            )
                                                        )

Before: GRIFFIN, WHITE, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.

       HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. After he was convicted by a jury of drug and

firearm offenses, Defendant-Appellant Raymond Adams learned that his trial counsel had

represented another participant in the incident that gave rise to Adams’s convictions. Adams

moved for a new trial and an evidentiary hearing, contending he was deprived of his Sixth

Amendment right to counsel free of any conflict of interest. The district court denied relief and,

finding no error, we AFFIRM.

                                                I.

       On August 30, 2017, law enforcement executed a search warrant for Adams’s home in

Inkster, Michigan, and found, among other things, crack cocaine, powder cocaine, heroin, and

firearms. Adams told law enforcement that, when they entered the home, he was in the basement

with his friend, Bobby Jenkins. Occupants of a car parked outside Adams’s house at the time of

the search also stated that Jenkins was in Adams’s basement; officers found Jenkins’s wallet and

$5000 cash in the car. Law enforcement, however, did not find Jenkins in the house nor did they
No. 21-1497, United States v. Adams

see him flee the scene. Adams was arrested the day of the search, and so was Jenkins sometime

later.1

          Attorney Kenneth Scott entered an appearance on behalf of Jenkins on September 12, 2017,

in relation to a petition charging Jenkins with violating the terms of his supervised release based

on his conduct at Adams’s house.2 In relevant part, the petition alleged that, at Adams’s home,

Jenkins both committed a federal, state, or local crime and associated with persons engaged in

criminal activity and/or persons convicted of a felony. A hearing was held on September 12, 2017,

at which the government called Officer Neil Egan, who testified to the events at Adams’s house.

Officer Egan testified that Adams had a prior felony conviction, that law enforcement recovered

drugs from the basement, and that law enforcement believed Jenkins was downstairs with Adams

just before the execution of the search warrant – although neither he nor members of his team saw

Jenkins at the scene. Officer Egan also testified that Adams had video surveillance at his home

but that he was unaware whether the surveillance recording was retrieved or reviewed. In

summation, the government argued that Jenkins had constructive possession of the drugs in

Adams’s basement.        The district court declined to make that finding.      The district court

nevertheless concluded that, by being at Adams’s home, Jenkins had associated with persons

engaged in criminal activity and/or convicted of a felony. On September 19, 2017, the district

court revoked Jenkins’s supervised release and sentenced him to 12 months incarceration. Scott

represented Jenkins for a total of eight days.

1
        Jenkins was arrested because “he had a warrant out for his arrest for something unrelated
to” the events at Adams’s house. R.86 PID 1174. The precise date of Jenkins’s arrest is not in the
record.
2
       The filings related to Jenkins’s violation of supervised release proceedings can be found at
United States v. Jenkins, No. 04-80033 (E.D. Mich.).
                                                 -2-
No. 21-1497, United States v. Adams

       Adams was charged in a seven-count indictment.3 Scott entered an appearance on behalf

of Adams on September 11, 2017—i.e., one day before he did so on behalf of Jenkins. Adams’s

trial began over a year later, on January 23, 2019. Scott’s opening statement to the jury proposed

that Adams was not the owner of the drugs; rather, they belonged to others in the house who fled.

       As it had at Jenkins’s violation of supervised release hearing, the government called Officer

Egan as a witness at Adams’s trial. Officer Egan testified that law enforcement recovered drugs

from Adams’s home and concluded they were Adams’s. He testified on cross examination:

       Q. In fact, everything that you located in the house you indicated that it belonged
       to Mr. Adams. Is that a fair statement?
       A. That’s a fair statement.
       Q. And you never saw Mr. Adams in possession of any of these items; is that a fair
       statement?
       A. Correct.
       Q. So you indicated that it belonged to him. Was your reason behind that he was
       the man of the house?
       A. Well, it’s based on the totality of the investigation.

R.86 PID 1020. Officer Egan also recalled seeing security cameras as he approached Adams’s

house but could not recall any cameras or recording equipment inside the house. His testimony

specifically addressed Jenkins only once, when the government, on redirect, asked him about

Jenkins’s arrest shortly after the search of Adams’s house. Although Scott did not ask Officer

3
        Adams’s seven charges were: (1) possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, 21
U.S.C. § 841; (2) possession with intent to distribute powder cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841;
(3) possession with intent to distribute heroin, 21 U.S.C. § 841; (4) possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); (5) possession of a firearm by a
previously convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); (6) possession of ammunition by a previously
convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); and (7) maintaining a drug involved premises, 21 U.S.C.
§ 856.
                                                 -3-
No. 21-1497, United States v. Adams

Egan about Jenkins, he questioned other government witnesses about Jenkins’s presence at the

house.

         After the government rested its case-in-chief, Scott moved to dismiss the one count

stemming from crack cocaine (which was found only in the basement) because, in part, “there was

a Bobby Jenkins in the basement” and no testimony concerned Adams’s participation in any drug

distribution. R.87 PID 1288-89. The government opposed, pointing out that no testimony or

evidence proved “that Mr. Jenkins was, in fact, in the residence at the time of the search.” Id. PID

1291. The district court denied Adams’s motion.

         At some point during the trial, the issue of Scott’s representation of Jenkins came up during

a sidebar, but the conversation was not transcribed. The government attorney recalled stating to

Scott, “it’s kind of ironic that you represented Bobby Jenkins as well,” to which Scott responded,

“I’m aware of that, but that was a different case and that was a different day.” R.160 PID 2723.

         Only one of Adams’s defense witnesses mentioned Jenkins, testifying that Jenkins was in

Adams’s basement immediately before the search and that the witness did not know when Jenkins

left. This witness and other defense witnesses also testified that Adams had surveillance and

recording equipment inside and outside his house.

         Anticipating Scott’s defense, the prosecution’s closing argument addressed the claim that

the drugs were Jenkins’s, not Adams’s, describing it as speculation. Scott’s closing argued that

the drugs belonged to Jenkins. Scott posited that Jenkins ran away, leaving his wallet and $5,000

behind, because he was guilty, and that Adams, in contrast, did not flee because he was innocent.

Scott added that law enforcement’s deliberate failure to obtain Adams’s surveillance recordings

prevented the jury from observing whether Jenkins brought the drugs into Adams’s house and how

Jenkins got away. In rebuttal, the government argued that

                                                  -4-
No. 21-1497, United States v. Adams

       [W]hat the defense wants you to do is speculate and speculate that just because
       Bobby Jenkins was in that basement at some point before the search that all of the
       drugs, including the drugs in the defendant’s bedroom and the drugs in the
       basement and the guns and the ammo, that those must have been Bobby Jenkins’[s]
       and not this defendant’s. Well, the defendant must be the unluckiest man in the
       world that on the day that Westland police happened to search his house that Bobby
       Jenkins happened to be at his house with $20,000 worth of drugs and left his drugs
       in the defendant’s house, which the police found.

R.90 PID 1740. On February 5, 2019, the jury found Adams guilty on all counts.

       On October 18, 2019, attorney Alvin Keel entered an appearance on behalf of Adams,

whom the district court had not yet sentenced. One month later, Keel moved for a new trial and

an evidentiary hearing, asserting that Scott’s representation deprived Adams of his Sixth

Amendment right to conflict-free representation because Scott’s representation of Jenkins

prevented Scott from impeaching Officer Egan with his prior testimony at Jenkins’s hearing –

where Officer Egan took the position that Jenkins owned the drugs. In January 2020, Scott moved

to withdraw from his representation of Adams because Keel intended to move for an evidentiary

hearing at which Keel would call Scott as a witness. Keel filed that motion the following month,

asserting that information gained through a proffer4 further conflicted Scott and required an

evidentiary hearing.

       The district court denied the motions for a new trial and an evidentiary hearing, concluding

that the difference in theories at Jenkins’s and Adams’s hearings failed to create a conflict of

interest for Scott. The district court concluded that Jenkins’s supervised release violations

concerned whether “Jenkins was [in Adams’s house] and involved with people who were engaged

in illegal activities,” not whether “he had the drugs.” R.153, 2568-69. It further understood Officer

4
      The motion did not identify what that proffer was. Further, although the motion contended
Adams made the proffer, Adams’s brief on appeal contends Jenkins made the proffer. Whether
Adams or Jenkins made the proffer is immaterial to our decision.
                                                -5-
No. 21-1497, United States v. Adams

Egan’s testimony in the two proceedings to be “responding to different kinds of questions” and

not “inconsistent.” Id. The district court did not address Adams’s argument concerning the

proffer.

       The district court then sentenced Adams to 120 months on Count 1; 48 months on Counts

2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, concurrent to Count 1; and 60 months on Count 4, consecutive to all other counts.

Adams timely appealed.

                                                 II.

       We first address the denial of Adams’s motion for a new trial premised on an alleged

conflict of interest. We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusion that no conflict of

interest existed. United States v. Osborne, 402 F.3d 626, 630 (6th Cir. 2005). “The underlying

factual bases upon which the district court’s conclusions rest are reviewed for clear error.” Id.

       In determining whether Scott’s representation deprived Adams of his Sixth Amendment

rights, the appropriate analytical framework depends on the type of representation involved:

successive representation or multiple concurrent representation. Successive representation—i.e.,

“previous unrelated representation of a co-defendant and/or trial witness”—calls for application

of the ineffective assistance of counsel standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.

668 (1984). Lordi v. Ishee, 384 F.3d 189, 193 (6th Cir. 2004).5 Strickland demands proof of

deficient performance (as measured against an objective standard of reasonableness) and prejudice

(defined as a reasonable probability that, but for the deficiency, the result of the proceeding would

have been different).     Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 694.         But with multiple concurrent

5
        Although the Supreme Court has “explicitly left open the question of whether the [Cuyler
v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980)] standard applie[s] to a conflict of interest due to successive
representation,” Stewart v. Wolfenbarger, 468 F.3d 338, 350-51 (6th Cir. 2006), we have held that
it does not apply, Lordi, 384 F.3d at 193.
                                                -6-
No. 21-1497, United States v. Adams

representation—i.e., “a single attorney simultaneously represent[ing] two or more codefendants in

the same or separate proceeding(s),” Jalowiec v. Bradshaw, 657 F.3d 293, 315 (6th Cir. 2011)—

we apply the standard set forth in Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980), which permits us to

presume Strickland prejudice where “counsel is burdened by an actual conflict of interest.”

Stewart v. Wolfenbarger, 468 F.3d 338, 350 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692).

An “actual conflict of interest” exists if “counsel ‘actively represented conflicting interests’” and

it “adversely affected [the] lawyer’s performance.” Id. (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692).

       Adams briefs this issue under the Sullivan standard. The government counters that this

case involves successive representation and, therefore, Strickland applies. We need not determine

the appropriate standard, however, because Adams’s claim fails under either standard. Adams has

not demonstrated that Scott was burdened by an actual conflict of interest that affected his

performance. See, e.g., Harvey v. United States, 798 F. App’x 879, 884 (6th Cir. 2020) (skipping

the representation analysis because defendant failed to meet the Sullivan standard, which he urged

the court to apply). Nor has Adams shown prejudice under Strickland.

       “In order to demonstrate a conflict of interest under Sullivan, [Adams] ‘must point to

specific instances in the record that suggest an actual conflict or impairment of [his] interests.’”

Moss v. United States, 323 F.3d 445, 463 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting Thomas v. Foltz, 818 F.2d 476,

481 (6th Cir. 1987)). The conflict cannot relate to “a matter that is irrelevant” nor can it be “merely

hypothetical.” Id. at 464. Adams concludes that Scott was conflicted based on the government’s

assertion, at Jenkins’s violation-of-supervised-release hearing, that Jenkins “was in possession of”

the drugs “because he was in the basement where the items were found.” September 12, 2017

Hearing Tr. at 38, United States v. Jenkins, No. 04-80033 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 12, 2017), ECF 102.

But the district court presiding at Jenkins’s hearing rejected the government’s argument that

                                                 -7-
No. 21-1497, United States v. Adams

Jenkins possessed the drugs, finding there was not “enough evidence even by hearsay.” Id. at 38-

39. Further, Scott’s defense strategy at Jenkins’s hearing was predicated on “no one with any

credibility [being able to] place Mr. Jenkins at” Adams’s house and was not directly related to

drug possession. Id. at 36. And, importantly, Scott’s defense of Adams contradicted his defense

of Jenkins—at Adams’s trial, Scott elicited testimony that Jenkins was in Adams’s basement and

that Jenkins evaded law enforcement, whose search was flawed and whose investigation targeted

Adams without looking at other suspects. Thus, it is clear that Scott did not feel bound to his prior

position in his defense of Adams.

       But even assuming there was a conflict of interest, Adams still fails to show that it had an

adverse effect on Scott’s representation of him. Showing an adverse effect requires demonstrating

“that ‘counsel was influenced in his basic strategic decisions by the interests of the former client.’”

Moss, 323 F.3d at 466 (quoting Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 160 (1988) (brackets

omitted)). Adams points to three strategic decisions. First, Adams contends that Scott should have

objected to the government’s questioning to the extent it implied that Jenkins was not at Adams’s

house. But Adams does not tell us on what bases Scott should have objected. Further, Scott did

not let the testimony on this point go unchallenged. Scott’s questioning exposed law enforcement

as not carefully setting a perimeter, not knowing whether someone left the house, and not

immediately locating Jenkins after learning that Jenkins was in the basement when the search

began. Second, Adams asserts that Scott failed to consider Jenkins as a potential defense witness.

Yet it is purely speculative to suggest that Jenkins’s testimony would have been helpful to Adams.

United States v. Kilpatrick, 798 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2015) (representation not adversely

affected if not clear that counsel “failed to do something that was clearly advantageous”). There

is nothing to suggest that Jenkins would have admitted to possessing the drugs (assuming he would

                                                 -8-
No. 21-1497, United States v. Adams

have waived his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, which we have no reason to

believe) or otherwise deflected suspicion from Adams. Third, Adams argues that Scott failed to

“fully argue” that the drugs belonged to Jenkins. Appellant Br. at 20. But Scott pursued this theory

throughout the case. In his opening statement, Scott advised the jury that some people in Adams’s

house got away but that law enforcement never wavered from the belief that the drugs belonged

to Adams; on cross examination, Scott questioned several officers about Jenkins’s involvement;

after the government rested, Scott moved to dismiss a count due, in part, to Jenkins’s presence in

the basement; and, in closing, Scott argued that Jenkins was the true owner of the drugs.

         In the absence of an actual conflict or its adverse effect on Scott’s representation, Adams

has not made a sufficient showing under Sullivan. This failure precludes the court from presuming

Strickland prejudice; and because Adams presents no separate Strickland argument, he fails to

meet that test as well. Accordingly, the district court properly denied Adams’s motion for a new

trial.

                                                 III.

         We turn to Adams’s motion for an evidentiary hearing on his motion for a new trial. A

district court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing on a motion for a new trial is reviewed for abuse

of discretion. United States v. Bass, 460 F.3d 830, 838 (6th Cir. 2006). The district court denied

Adams an evidentiary hearing because, in its view, Officer Egan’s testimony at Adams’s trial was

consistent with his testimony at Jenkins’s hearing. Adams argues that the district court ignored

another reason why Adams deserved a hearing: the need to elucidate what Scott learned in a proffer

session.

         With respect to the district court’s expressed reason for denying Adams a hearing, we agree

that Officer Egan’s testimony was consistent. At Jenkins’s hearing, although the prosecution

                                                 -9-
No. 21-1497, United States v. Adams

argued that Jenkins owned the drugs, Officer Egan testified only on the issue whether Jenkins was

at Adams’s house and involved with people engaged in illegal activities; no question to Officer

Egan concerned ownership or possession of the drugs. By contrast, at Adams’s trial, Scott

questioned Officer Egan directly about why he believed the drugs belonged to Adams despite

never seeing them in Adams’s possession.

       Adams’s proffer argument is also insufficient to necessitate a hearing. Adams suggests

that the information Scott gained led him to “avoid[] issues of Jenkins when the government

belittled any efforts to show that Jenkins had fled the scene just before the search.” Appellant Br.

at 22. But Scott did not “avoid” Jenkins’s involvement. Rather, he actively cast Jenkins as the

owner of the drugs, who got away due to law enforcement’s failures to secure the perimeter, make

sure no one exited Adams’s house unnoticed, or “try to locate” Jenkins after learning that Jenkins

was in Adams’s basement. R.85 PID 880.

       The assertion that Scott withheld or handicapped a defense of Adams premised on Officer

Egan’s testimony or Jenkins’s involvement is not borne out by the record. The district court did

not abuse its discretion in denying Adams an evidentiary hearing. United States v. Robinson, 290

F. App’x 769, 776 (6th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (“Because we conclude that [the] district court

properly concluded that none of Robinson’s grounds for a new trial have merit, he is not entitled

to an evidentiary hearing.”).

                                                IV.

       For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Adams’s motions for a new

trial and for an evidentiary hearing.

                                               -10-