United States v. Patricia Campbell Hearst
638 F.2d 1190 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a Sixth Amendment violation for ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest, a defendant who did not object at trial must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected their lawyer's performance, but they are not required to show prejudice to the outcome of the case.
Facts:
- Patricia Hearst was arrested for bank robbery in September 1975 and retained attorney F. Lee Bailey.
- During the course of his representation, Bailey received offers to publish a book concerning the Hearst trial.
- Bailey signed a contract with a publisher that was contingent upon Hearst agreeing not to publish her own account of her experiences for 18 months following his book's publication.
- Hearst's associate counsel, J. Albert Johnson, informed Hearst before trial that Bailey would write a book about her as part of the fee arrangement and that she would eventually have to sign a related document.
- On March 22, 1976, two days after she was convicted, Johnson presented Hearst with a covenant, which she signed.
- The covenant stated Hearst would cooperate exclusively with Bailey for his book and would not publish her own account for 18 months after Bailey's book was released.
- Hearst later declared by affidavit that she did not feel a sense of free will, have independent counsel, or understand the covenant's effect when she signed it.
Procedural Posture:
- Patricia Hearst was tried for bank robbery in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
- The trial court denied Hearst's motion to suppress an incriminating tape recording.
- A jury convicted Hearst of bank robbery.
- The trial court denied Hearst's subsequent motions for a new trial.
- Hearst, as appellant, appealed her conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the conviction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court denied Hearst's petition for a writ of certiorari.
- Hearst filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the U.S. District Court, collaterally attacking her conviction on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The district court denied the § 2255 motion without holding an evidentiary hearing.
- Hearst, as appellant, appealed the district court's denial of her § 2255 motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the Sixth Amendment, must a district court hold an evidentiary hearing on a § 2255 motion when a defendant presents specific, non-frivolous factual allegations that their attorney's financial interest in a book contract created an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected trial strategy?
Opinions:
Majority - Choy, Circuit Judge
Yes. A district court must grant an evidentiary hearing on a § 2255 motion unless the motion and case records conclusively show the prisoner is entitled to no relief. Here, Hearst's allegations require a hearing because she has raised a valid claim that her Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated. Applying the test from Cuyler v. Sullivan, a defendant must show that an 'actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance.' Hearst is not required to show that the conflict prejudiced the trial's outcome. Hearst's specific allegations—that Bailey's interest in his book deal caused him to (1) forgo a motion for a continuance, (2) forgo a motion for a change of venue, and (3) place her on the witness stand to her detriment—are not 'palpably incredible.' Because these allegations, if true, could establish an actual conflict with an adverse effect on Bailey's performance, Hearst is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine the truth of her claims.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the procedural threshold for obtaining an evidentiary hearing on Sixth Amendment claims involving an attorney's financial conflict of interest. By applying the Cuyler v. Sullivan standard, the court reinforces that the key inquiry is whether an actual conflict adversely affected the attorney's performance, not whether it changed the trial's outcome. The ruling serves as a strong warning against attorneys entering into publication or media deals related to a client's case during representation, as it creates a high risk of an actual conflict of interest. It establishes that specific, plausible allegations of tainted trial strategy are sufficient to overcome a summary dismissal and require a full hearing.
