Levell Taylor v. Randy Grounds
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13568
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Levell Taylor and his brother Lowell were tried separately (Levell by bench, Lowell by jury) for the 1996 murder of Bruce Carter; both were represented by the same attorney, Raymond Prusak. Levell was convicted and sentenced to 35 years.
- Prosecution evidence included eyewitness Baker (who later identified Lowell as shooter and said Levell handed Lowell a gun) and impeached grand-jury testimony by Phillip Marshall.
- Levell presented a postconviction petition with affidavits from three witnesses (Woods, Bingham, Plummer) who would have testified that Lowell shot Carter but that Levell did not hand Lowell a gun; they claimed Prusak refused to call them because their testimony would hurt Lowell.
- At the evidentiary hearing Prusak testified he declined the witnesses on strategic grounds (witness credibility, inconsistencies, weak need given State’s case) and acknowledged concerns about overlapping impact on Lowell; the postconviction trial court denied relief in a very brief ruling.
- The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, applying Cuyler v. Sullivan and concluding Levell failed to show an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel, and implicitly credited Prusak.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed the federal habeas denial, holding the Illinois Supreme Court unreasonably applied Sullivan in finding no conflict and unreasonably relied on an implied credibility finding that the state trial court never made; remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the conflict adversely affected counsel’s performance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joint representation created a conflict of interest | Levell: counsel conflicted by representing both brothers and refused to call exculpatory witnesses to avoid harming Lowell | State/Prusak: common defense tactic; witnesses were not called for strategic reasons (poor credibility, inconsistencies) | Seventh Circuit: Illinois Supreme Court unreasonably applied Sullivan — the omitted witnesses presented a plausible, antagonistic defense creating a conflict |
| Whether any conflict adversely affected counsel’s performance (Sullivan adverse-effect prong) | Levell: counsel’s refusal to call witnesses was motivated by protecting Lowell, so performance was adversely affected | State: counsel’s strategic credibility-based choices, not conflict, drove the decision | Seventh Circuit: state courts made no explicit factual finding on adverse effect; appellate reliance on an implicit credibility finding was unreasonable — remand for evidentiary hearing |
| Standard of review under AEDPA | Levell: state decision unreasonably applied Supreme Court precedent and relied on unsupported factual findings | State: Illinois courts’ credibility-based conclusion entitled to deference | Seventh Circuit: AEDPA deference applies, but state court decision was objectively unreasonable on law and fact so relief requires further fact-finding on remand |
| Remedy and next step | Levell: requests relief based on violation of Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free counsel | State: asserted denial was correct and final | Held: Reverse district court denial and remand to district court for evidentiary hearing to determine whether the conflict actually affected counsel’s performance |
Key Cases Cited
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (establishes test for unraised conflict: actual conflict and adverse effect on counsel’s performance)
- Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (joint representation suspect because it may prevent counsel from acting on clients’ divergent interests)
- Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (illustrates prejudice when counsel refuses to act to avoid harming codefendant)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (AEDPA unreasonable-application standard explained)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (clarifies demanding nature of §2254(d) review)
- Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (deference to state findings is demanding but not insatiable)
- Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261 (conflict influence on basic strategic decisions is relevant to adverse-effect inquiry)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (§2254(d)(1) review limited to state-court record; post-remand evidentiary hearings may be required)
- Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (clarifies meaning of actual conflict affecting counsel’s performance)