Freeman v. Chandler
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12408
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Freeman was convicted of attempted murder in Illinois state court; defense counsel testified at Freeman's bench trial, including testimony by one attorney who also represented him at the trial.
- Freeman challenged the representation, arguing failure to ensure conflict-free counsel and improper dual role of counsel as witness and attorney.
- On post-conviction review, the Illinois courts denied relief; the federal district court later denied Freeman's Rule 60(b) motion as a successive habeas petition.
- Freeman filed a pro se Rule 60(b) motion arguing the district court failed to address conflict-free counsel; the district court treated it as a successive petition and denied relief.
- This court granted a certificate of appealability on whether the Rule 60(b) motion was a improper successive petition, whether remand was proper for claims the district court missed, and whether Freeman was denied conflict-free counsel.
- The Seventh Circuit ultimately analyzed the conflict-free-counsel issue on the merits under Strickland rather than under a Cuyler framework, and affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 60(b) motion as a successive petition | Freeman contends the motion is not a new habeas petition. | Hulick treated it as a second or successive petition based on new state-court claims. | Not a barred successive petition; merits review appropriate |
| Preservation and consideration of conflict-free counsel | Conflict-free counsel argument was raised and preserved for merits review. | Court treated waiver and waiver analysis as controlling; conflict-free issue waived | Conflict-free claim preserved and analyzed on the merits |
| Framework for evaluating conflict of interest | Either Cuyler actual-conflict framework or Strickland framework could apply. | Cuyler inapplicable; Strickland governs unless actual conflict shown. | Proceed under Strickland; not an actual conflict under Cuyler for this case |
| Merits of the conflict-free counsel claim under Strickland | Nemzin's dual role biased the outcome; counsel's testimony harmed Freeman. | Nemzin's testimony aided Freeman and did not prejudice the bench trial. | No reasonable probability that outcome would differ; no prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (U.S. 2005) (Rule 60(b) as successive petition if barred by § 2244)
- United States v. Adkins, 274 F.3d 444 (7th Cir.2001) (conflict-free counsel can violate Sixth Amendment)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980) (actual conflict presumption and prejudice by conflict)
- Turner v. United States, 594 F.3d 946 (7th Cir.2010) (trusts informing defendant of conflict-free counsel rights)
- Flores v. United States, 5 F.3d 1070 (7th Cir.1993) (consequence of waivers in conflict scenarios)
- Lowry v. United States, 971 F.2d 55 (7th Cir.1992) (valid waiver of conflict-free counsel)
- Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986) (ethical breaches and ineffective assistance not automatically denial)
- Ellison v. Acevedo, 593 F.3d 625 (7th Cir.2010) (standard for reviewing state-court prejudice finding on habeas review)
- Sprosty v. Buchler, 79 F.3d 635 (7th Cir.1996) (discretion to reach merits of habeas claims not raised first in district court)
- Holleman v. Duckworth, 155 F.3d 906 (7th Cir.1998) (district court should ordinarily decide habeas merits first)
- Kaczmarek v. Rednour, 627 F.3d 586 (7th Cir.2010) (principles for reaching merits on habeas review)
- Solina v. United States, 709 F.2d 160 (2d Cir.1983) (counsel's conduct and prejudice analysis in conflicts)