Com. v. Taylor, J.
Com. v. Taylor, J. No. 749 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 10, 2017Background
- In 2005 John Junior Taylor was convicted of first-degree murder for a 2005 shooting; he was sentenced to life and his conviction and direct appeal were denied.
- While Taylor was incarcerated he met fellow inmate Thomas Taylor, who later became a key Commonwealth witness claiming Taylor made a jailhouse confession.
- Attorney Arthur Gutkin represented Thomas in federal matters and entered his appearance for John Taylor on January 30, 2007; Thomas had sent letters to the DA offering cooperation earlier that month.
- Gutkin moved to withdraw as Thomas’s counsel on May 10, 2007 and was relieved on May 14, 2007; trial began May 21, 2007 and Gutkin cross-examined Thomas at trial.
- John filed a PCRA petition alleging an actual conflict of interest and ineffective assistance because Gutkin had represented the state’s key witness and therefore curtailed cross-examination to protect confidences.
- The PCRA court held hearings, found Gutkin’s cross-examination vigorous, concluded any conflict was resolved before trial, and dismissed the petition; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Taylor) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel had an actual conflict of interest by representing the prosecution's witness (Thomas) and Taylor simultaneously | Gutkin previously represented Thomas and therefore had ongoing duties/confidences that limited cross-examination and created an actual conflict that presumes prejudice | Conflict was resolved before trial when Gutkin withdrew from Thomas’s federal case and Taylor was informed; cross-examination was adequate | Court: An actual conflict existed during the overlapping representation period, but it was resolved before trial and no prejudice was shown; claim fails |
| Whether Gutkin’s cross-examination was curtailed by the conflict and thus ineffective assistance | Gutkin refrained from using confidential information and warned the jury he was ethically restrained; Taylor lacked a meaningful waiver and was unaware of relevant facts | Record shows extensive, pointed cross-examination, witness waived privilege, and no specific confidential impeachment material was identified by Taylor | Court: Counsel’s cross-examination was vigorous; Taylor failed to prove no reasonable basis or prejudice; ineffective-assistance claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (establishes that prejudice is presumed where counsel actively represented conflicting interests and the conflict adversely affected performance)
- Commonwealth v. Buehl, 510 Pa. 363 (Pa. 1986) (prejudice presumed when an actual conflict adversely affects counsel's performance)
- Commonwealth v. Colavita, 606 Pa. 1 (2010) (appellate caution against finding per se unreasonableness without counsel’s testimony; deference to trial strategy)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 139 A.3d 1257 (Pa. 2016) (PCRA ineffective-assistance standard articulated)
- Jeffers v. United States, 520 F.2d 1256 (7th Cir.) (analysis of prior representation of prosecution witness and scrutiny of counsel's loyalties)
- Castillo v. Estelle, 504 F.2d 1243 (5th Cir.) (conflict from prior counsel-witness relationships can require new trial because prejudice may be subtle)
- Commonwealth v. McCloy, 393 Pa. Super. 217 (1990) (counsel’s conflicts do not automatically show adverse effect where record shows vigorous representation)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 380 Pa. Super. 619 (1988) (discusses timing and materiality of prior representation in conflict analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Munson, 419 Pa. Super. 238 (1992) (cases addressing prior representation of witnesses/co-defendants and confidentiality concerns)