2020 IL App (4th) 180165
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Defendant David Boswell was convicted of first-degree murder and represented at trial by assistant public defenders Carla Barnes and Brian McEldowney; the State was represented by State's Attorney William Yoder and Asst. State's Attorney Jane Foster.
- After conviction, an investigator (Laura McBride) executed affidavits alleging that then-county public defender Kim Campbell told McBride she helped Foster write the State’s rebuttal closing and had supervisory authority over the assistant public defenders who represented Boswell.
- The appellate court remanded for appointment of counsel and amendment of Boswell’s postconviction petition to include a conflict-of-interest claim based on Campbell’s alleged assistance to the prosecution.
- The amended petition alleged Campbell’s active assistance to the State created a per se conflict and that Barnes knew of Campbell’s conduct but failed to raise it in posttrial proceedings; McBride’s affidavits supported these assertions.
- The circuit court dismissed the amended petition, finding Campbell’s conflict was not imputed to Barnes and McEldowney and that no actual conflict or prejudice had been adequately alleged.
- The appellate court reversed: taking the petition’s allegations as true, it found Campbell’s conduct alleged a per se conflict that, on these facts, disqualified the assistant public defenders she supervised and that the filings also supported an inference Barnes labored under an actual conflict; the case is remanded for an evidentiary (third-stage) hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petition made a substantial showing of a per se conflict by county public defender Campbell | Campbell’s conflict (if any) is not imputed to other assistant public defenders; no per se conflict affecting trial counsel | Campbell actively aided the prosecution (helped write rebuttal); per se conflict exists and disqualifies her office | Yes—taking allegations as true, Campbell had a per se conflict and, on these facts, it was imputed to Barnes and McEldowney; remand for evidentiary hearing |
| Whether defendant showed an actual conflict affecting trial counsel (Barnes) | No showing of prejudice or that trial counsel’s strategy/decisions were affected | Barnes knew of Campbell’s conduct (per McBride) but failed to act, supporting an inference her decision-making was impaired by divided loyalties | Yes—the affidavits support an inference of an actual conflict for Barnes; merits an evidentiary hearing |
| Whether the second-stage dismissal was proper | Dismissal proper because defendant failed to make a substantial showing of a constitutional violation | Dismissal erroneous because petition and affidavits state sufficient facts to proceed | Reversed; second-stage dismissal reversed and remanded for third-stage proceedings |
| Whether postconviction counsel provided unreasonable assistance by not supplementing with newspaper articles | State: issue not reached below; dismissal appropriate on other grounds | Defendant argued counsel unreasonably failed to add press materials | Not decided by appellate court (issue not reached) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Spreitzer, 123 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 1988) (explains per se conflict where counsel has ties to prosecution and risks ‘subliminal’ impairment)
- People v. Banks, 121 Ill. 2d 36 (Ill. 1987) (public defender office not automatically disqualified like private firm; requires case-by-case inquiry)
- People v. Miller, 79 Ill. 2d 454 (Ill. 1980) (discusses case-specific treatment of conflicts in public defender offices)
- People v. Robinson, 79 Ill. 2d 147 (Ill. 1979) (public defender conflict principles distinguishing offices from private firms)
- People v. Morales, 209 Ill. 2d 340 (Ill. 2004) (actual conflict requires a specific defect in counsel’s strategy, tactics, or decisionmaking attributable to the conflict)
- People v. Stoval, 40 Ill. 2d 109 (Ill. 1968) (recognizes risk counsel’s loyalties may expose representation to later fidelity challenges)
- People v. Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d 458 (Ill. 2006) (describes second-stage postconviction standard: take well-pleaded facts as true; no credibility findings)
- People v. Hernandez, 231 Ill. 2d 134 (Ill. 2008) (actual conflict framework and requirement that conflict adversely affect performance)
- People v. Taylor, 237 Ill. 2d 356 (Ill. 2010) (clarifies defendant need not show conflict contributed to conviction)