Cuyler v. Sullivan

Supreme Court of United States
446 U.S. 335 (1980)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To establish a Sixth Amendment violation based on a conflict of interest, a defendant who did not object at trial must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest existed and that this conflict adversely affected their lawyer's performance.

Facts:

John Sullivan, Gregory Carchidi, and Anthony DiPasquale were indicted for the murders of John Gorey and Rita Janda.
A janitor, Francis McGrath, saw the three men in the building shortly before hearing sounds like firecrackers.
Carchidi then directed McGrath to leave the building and to say nothing about what he saw.
Two privately retained lawyers, G. Fred DiBona and A. Charles Peruto, were hired to represent all three defendants.
Sullivan, unable to afford his own lawyer, accepted representation from DiBona and Peruto.
At Sullivan's trial, which occurred first, the defense rested its case without presenting any evidence.
Sullivan's co-defendants, Carchidi and DiPasquale, were later acquitted in separate trials.

Procedural Posture:

John Sullivan was convicted of first-degree murder in a Pennsylvania state trial court.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the state's highest court, affirmed his conviction by an equally divided vote.
Sullivan filed a petition for collateral relief in the state trial court, which was denied on the conflict of interest claim.
On a second appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the denial of collateral relief.
Sullivan then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The District Court denied the petition.
Sullivan appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which reversed the district court's decision, holding that a 'possible conflict of interest' was sufficient to grant relief.
The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a defendant, who raised no objection at trial, establish a Sixth Amendment violation for ineffective assistance of counsel by showing only that his retained lawyer represented potentially conflicting interests?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Powell

No. A defendant does not establish a Sixth Amendment violation merely by showing a potential conflict of interest; they must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected their counsel's performance. The Sixth Amendment's guarantee of effective assistance of counsel applies equally to defendants with retained counsel and those with appointed counsel, as state action is implicated in any state criminal trial that results in a conviction. However, a trial court has no affirmative duty to inquire into the propriety of multiple representation unless it knows or reasonably should know that a particular conflict exists. To prove a constitutional violation, a defendant who failed to object at trial cannot rely on the mere possibility of a conflict. Instead, the defendant must show that their counsel actively represented conflicting interests and that this actual conflict had an adverse effect on specific aspects of the lawyer's performance. Once that showing is made, prejudice is presumed, and the defendant need not demonstrate that the trial's outcome would have been different.

Concurring - Justice Brennan

A trial court has an affirmative constitutional duty to inquire whenever there is joint representation to ensure the defendant's choice to proceed is knowing and intelligent. Because the trial judge has a duty to protect the accused's rights, the court cannot simply assume that silence from the defendant or counsel indicates a valid waiver of the right to conflict-free representation. Where the trial court fails to conduct such an inquiry, a defendant who later shows a significant possibility of conflict should be entitled to a presumption that their representation was adversely affected, which the state would then have the burden to rebut.

Concurring - Justice Marshall

The potential for conflict in multiple representation is so severe that trial judges must have a duty to inquire and ensure any such arrangement is the product of an informed choice. The majority's standard requiring a defendant to show that an actual conflict 'adversely affected his lawyer's performance' is an unduly harsh and speculative test. The proper inquiry under the Sixth Amendment should be whether an actual, relevant conflict of interest existed during the proceedings. If such a conflict is shown to have existed, the conviction must be reversed without the additional, and often impossible, burden of proving how it specifically altered the attorney's performance.

Analysis:

This case establishes the critical standard for ineffective assistance of counsel claims based on a conflict of interest when no objection was made at trial. It distinguishes such cases from Holloway v. Arkansas, where a timely objection requires automatic reversal if the trial court fails to investigate. The 'actual conflict' and 'adverse effect' test created here becomes the governing framework for post-conviction conflict of interest claims. The decision also definitively holds that the Sixth Amendment's protections apply equally to retained and appointed counsel, resolving a circuit split by finding that the state's prosecution of the case constitutes sufficient state action.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Cuyler v. Sullivan (1980)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"