Court Opinion

ID: 9454527
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:49:12.487877+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:09.498965
License: Public Domain

FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I think it is a close question whether petitioner, pro se, has said enough to call for an evidentiary hearing, and I do not dissent. But if it should appear only that petitioner’s attorney was counsel for the robbed bank in some matter at the same time he was counsel for petitioner, and failed so to inform petitioner, I would not consider those bare facts a sufficient reason for granting a new trial. In my view the district court should not set aside the conviction unless the evidence also shows a probability that the relationship between petitioner’s retained counsel and the bank was sufficient to and did cause counsel to be ineffective in representing petitioner.