No, the defendant doesn't automatically get a new trial. To get a new trial, the defendant must prove that his lawyer's connection to the victim actually made him do a worse job. Just because the judge should have asked about the potential problem doesn't mean the trial was unfair. Unless the defendant can point to specific ways the conflict harmed his defense, the conviction stands.

No. An automatic new trial is the wrong approach. The facts here show why. A lower court already looked into it and found the lawyer's old case with the victim had zero effect on the murder trial. The lawyer didn't even think he had any loyalty to the dead victim, so his choices weren't biased. The defense strategies people now say he should have used wouldn't have worked anyway because of the evidence and because the defendant insisted he wasn't even there.

Yes, he should automatically get a new trial. This situation was completely wrong from the start. The lawyer had a duty to tell everyone about his connection to the victim, and he didn't. The judge had a duty to investigate before making the appointment, and she didn't. You can't trust that a lawyer is doing his best for the accused killer when he just represented the victim. In a death penalty case, the system has to look fair, and this did not.

Yes, he should get a new trial. Our past cases say that if a judge knows about a potential conflict ahead of time and does nothing, the conviction gets reversed automatically. That's what happened here. The majority is changing the rules to say it only matters if the lawyer complains. That's a bad rule because it lets judges off the hook when they should be paying attention, especially when a lawyer might be hiding a conflict for his own reasons.

Yes, this is so obviously wrong that the conviction must be reversed. Having the victim's lawyer defend the accused killer is a 'structural defect'—it breaks the whole system of a fair trial. The government itself created this unacceptable situation. Allowing a death sentence to happen after such a breakdown of justice destroys public trust in our legal system.

No. Mickens has to show the conflict actually caused his lawyer to do a worse job, unless he had no lawyer at all or didn't have one at a very important time. Here, he didn't show that. Just because the judge should have asked about the conflict doesn't change that. The appeals court said there wasn't a problem, so Mickens loses.

Agrees with the main decision. Says this case shows why automatically saying there's a problem is a bad idea. A lower court looked closely and found the lawyer's work for the victim didn't actually change anything for Mickens. A possible conflict isn't enough if it didn't really affect the case.

Disagrees. The lawyer messed up badly by not telling anyone he worked for the victim too. When a defendant can't afford a lawyer, the judge picking one is very important. Because this conflict was so bad and it was a death penalty case, the conviction should automatically be thrown out.

Disagrees. Says the judge knew or should have known there might be a conflict and should have asked. By not asking, the judge messed up based on earlier cases. The fix should be a new trial. The Court's rule doesn't make sense and makes the judge's duty meaningless.

Disagrees. When a conflict is this bad, especially in a death penalty case, the conviction should automatically be thrown out. It looks too unfair and there's too big a chance it caused problems, so we shouldn't make defendants prove it in each case.

An `actual conflict,'for Sixth Amendment purposes, is a conflict of interest that adversely affects counsel's performance

An actual conflict of interest is a "conflict that affected counsel's performance—as opposed to a mere theoretical division of loyalties."

To demonstrate a Sixth Amendment violation where a trial court fails to inquire into a potential conflict of interest about which it knew or reasonably should have known, a defendant must establish that a conflict of interest adversely affected counsel's performance.

Where assistance of counsel has been denied entirely or during a critical stage of the proceeding, the defendant need not establish the Strickland prejudice prong because, in "circumstances of that magnitude," "the likelihood that the verdict is unreliable is so high that a case-by-case inquiry is unnecessary.... `[C] ircumstances of that magnitude'may also arise when the …

As for the "conflict of interest," even where defense counsel is involved in an alleged conflict, a petitioner must show that representation of counsel is adversely affected by an actual conflict of interest.

"As a general matter, a defendant alleging a Sixth Amendment violation must demonstrate `a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.'"

The Supreme Court has defined an "actual conflict" by the effect a potential conflict had on counsel's performance.

—stating that, although Courts of Appeals have applied Sullivan "unblinkingly to all kinds of alleged attorney ethical conflicts," including "when representation of the defendant somehow implicates counsel's personal or financial interests," the "language of Sullivan itself does not clearly establish, or indeed even support, such expansive application" (internal quotation …

Yes. A defendant must show that the conflict of interest adversely affected counsel's performance. The automatic reversal rule established in *Holloway v. Arkansas* applies only when a defense counsel makes a timely objection to joint representation, which did not occur here. The Court's subsequent decision in *Wood v. Georgia* did not create an automatic reversal rule for a judge's mere failure to inquire; the phrase 'actual conflict of interest' in *Wood* meant a conflict that actually affected counsel’s performance. The trial court’s awareness of a potential conflict does not, by itself, render the verdict unreliable or make it more likely that counsel's performance was affected. Therefore, to establish a Sixth Amendment violation, the defendant retains the burden established in *Cuyler v. Sullivan* to show that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance.

Yes. A wooden rule of automatic reversal is inappropriate, and the facts of this case demonstrate why. The District Court found that counsel’s brief prior representation of the victim had no effect on the defense. The attorney, Saunders, testified he did not believe he had any continuing duty to his deceased client, meaning his strategic choices were not influenced by the prior representation. Furthermore, the alternative defense strategies petitioner now suggests were foreclosed by the strong prosecution evidence and petitioner's own insistence on testifying that he had never met the victim. The Sixth Amendment question must turn on a deficiency in the lawyer's actual performance, not on the trial judge's failure to take a prophylactic measure.

No. Automatic reversal is the proper remedy for the multiple constitutional violations in this case. The attorney violated his duty to disclose, Mickens was denied his right to conflict-free counsel, and the judge violated her duty to inquire before appointing counsel for an indigent defendant in a capital case. This conflict was not theoretical; an attorney who represented the victim cannot build the necessary trust with the accused killer, especially where victim-impact evidence is critical. The majority misreads *Wood*, which mandates reversal when a trial court fails to inquire into a conflict it knows or should know exists. Allowing a conviction to stand under these circumstances demeans the legal profession and undermines the appearance of justice, which is paramount in a capital case.

No. The Court's precedents create a coherent scheme that the majority now disrupts. When a judge has prospective notice of a potential conflict and fails to inquire, *Holloway* requires automatic reversal. When a conflict is discovered only retrospectively, *Sullivan* requires a showing of adverse effect. This case falls under the *Holloway* rule because the appointing judge knew or should have known of the potential conflict from the start. The majority's new rule, which makes a defense objection a legal necessity for automatic reversal, is irrational. It weakens the incentive for judicial vigilance in the most dangerous situations—where a lawyer is silent about their own conflict—and effectively eliminates the judge's duty to inquire in no-objection cases.

No. This case presents a conflict so egregious that a categorical rule of automatic reversal is required. The appointment of the murder victim's own lawyer to represent the accused is a structural defect in the trial framework. The conflict was obvious on its face, and the Commonwealth itself created it through the judge's appointment. In a capital case where the victim's character is at issue, the potential for prejudice is immense and difficult to prove after the fact. To carry out a death sentence obtained under these circumstances diminishes public faith in the fairness and integrity of the criminal justice system.

No. A defendant alleging a Sixth Amendment violation must demonstrate that a conflict of interest adversely affected his counsel's performance, except in cases where assistance of counsel has been denied entirely or during a critical stage of the proceeding. Here, Mickens has not shown that the conflict of interest adversely affected his representation. The trial court's failure to inquire into a potential conflict upon notice does not relieve defendant of burden of showing adverse effect. The Court of Appeals found no adverse effect, so the denial of habeas relief is affirmed.

Concurs with the majority opinion and emphasizes that the facts of this case illustrate why a categorical rule requiring reversal is inappropriate. The District Court conducted an evidentiary hearing and found that counsel's brief representation of the victim had no effect on the course of petitioner's trial. A theoretical conflict does not establish a constitutional violation when the conflict had no effect on the representation.

Dissents, arguing that the lawyer's failure to disclose his prior representation was a severe lapse in professional duty. When an indigent defendant is unable to retain his own lawyer, the trial judge's appointment of counsel is itself a critical stage of a criminal trial. The unique circumstances of this case, including the egregious nature of the conflict and the capital context, warrant a categorical approach and automatic reversal.

Dissents, contending that the trial judge knew or should have known of the risk of a conflict of interest and failed to inquire, violating the duty established in Holloway v. Arkansas, Cuyler v. Sullivan, and Wood v. Georgia. The remedy should be an order vacating the conviction and affording a new trial. The majority's rule makes no sense and leaves the judge's duty a matter of mere words.

Dissents, advocating for a categorical rule of automatic reversal in cases of such a severe conflict of interest, especially in capital cases. The appearance of unfairness and the likelihood of prejudice in such cases are serious enough to warrant a categorical approach without requiring proof of prejudice in individual cases.

Mickens v. Taylor

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot