Marilyn Mulero v. Sheryl Thompson
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2398
7th Cir.2012Background
- Mulero was charged in Illinois with four murders, two conspiracies, and one gun-use offense; she pled guilty blind, and counts merged to two intentional-murder verdicts.
- She received a death sentence at first sentencing; later Illinois Supreme Court vacated and remanded for a new sentencing; second sentencing yielded life imprisonment without parole.
- Mulero pursued post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel by Lynch; district court found most claims defaulted and others meritless, certifying two issues for appeal.
- On appeal, Mulero preserved three arguments from one round of state review: failure to investigate Serrano, failure to obtain psychological evidence for involuntary confession, and failure to challenge Rodriguez’s inconsistent statements and biases.
- The Seventh Circuit held the three preserved claims were procedurally defaulted or failed on the merits under AEDPA, affirming denial of habeas relief.
- Key governing law applied: Strickland standard for ineffective assistance and Hill prejudice standard, with de novo review where the state court did not resolve prong one.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Lynch's failure to interview Serrano amount to ineffective assistance? | Mulero | Mulero | No prejudice; no reasonable chance investigation would alter outcome |
| Did Lynch's failure to obtain psychological evidence to challenge confession constitute ineffective assistance? | Mulero | Mulero | No prejudice; evidence insufficient to change plea decision |
| Did Lynch fail to exploit Rodriguez’s inconsistent statements and bias, affecting outcome? | Mulero | Mulero | No prejudice; inconsistencies unlikely to change verdict given overwhelming evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (U.S. 1999) (fair presentation requirement for habeas review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (prejudice inquiry for guilty pleas mirrors trial prejudice)
- Ward v. Jenkins, 613 F.3d 692 (7th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of default determinations)
- McCarthy v. Pollard, 656 F.3d 478 (7th Cir. 2011) (reasonable application of clearly established federal law)
- Sussman v. Jenkins, 636 F.3d 329 (7th Cir. 2011) (AEDPA review framework and factual determinations)
- Mendiola v. Schomig, 224 F.3d 589 (7th Cir. 2000) (witness reliability and motivation considerations in evaluation)
- Promotor v. Pollard, 628 F.3d 878 (7th Cir. 2010) (fairness and procedural default considerations in habeas)