People v. Nelson, 89 N.E.3d 725

Background

Four women (Nelson, Hall, Cox, Ball) were tried in severed simultaneous bench trials for the beating, stabbing, and armed robbery death of Morris Wilson; all were convicted. Nelson was sentenced to consecutive terms (25 years for murder, 7 years for robbery).
Nelson and Hall were represented by attorneys from the same law clinic; Nelson contended counsel chose a joint self‑defense strategy rather than asserting Nelson’s innocence for fear of harming Hall.
Evidence included multiple eyewitnesses who saw four women assaulting Wilson, physical and DNA evidence (knife, clothing, blood), and Nelson’s videotaped admission that she and the others chased and attacked Wilson, that Hall stabbed him, and that Nelson searched his pockets.
Nelson argued on appeal that counsel labored under an actual conflict of interest because a plausible alternative defense (lack of accountability/innocence) was abandoned in favor of a joint self‑defense theory.
The appellate court affirmed under People v. Echols, which held that availability of a strategy favoring one codefendant over another does not by itself create a conflict; the State conceded Echols was no longer good law.
The Illinois Supreme Court overruled Echols, applied the Cuyler v. Sullivan standard requiring an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel, but found Nelson failed to show a plausible alternative defense because Illinois’s common‑design/accountability rule made lack‑of‑accountability unavailable on these facts.

Issues

Issue	People’s Argument	Nelson’s Argument	Held
Whether joint representation by attorneys from same firm created a Sixth Amendment conflict	No actual conflict; joint defense was viable	Counsel chose self‑defense over a plausible innocence/accountability defense to protect Hall	Echols overruled; court applied Sullivan but found no actual conflict — Nelson failed to show a plausible alternative defense
Whether Echols rule remains good law	Echols need not be overruled	Echols conflicted with Sullivan; must be abandoned	Echols overruled as inconsistent with Sullivan/Cuyler test
Standard for proving conflict when raised after trial	Apply Cuyler v. Sullivan: must show actual conflict that adversely affected performance	Same: show discarded alternative defense was plausible and abandoned due to other loyalties	Court adopts Sullivan/Cuyler framework and Fahey two‑part formulation for assessing plausibility and loyalty impact
Whether lack‑of‑accountability (innocence) defense was a viable alternative here	Common‑design/accountability law forecloses it given Nelson’s admissions and conduct	Argued statement supported lack of accountability because Hall acted alone in stabbing and Nelson tried to stop it	Held not viable: Nelson’s own admissions (grabbing knife, attacking, searching pockets, staying with group) show participation in common design, so accountability applies and no actual conflict shown

Key Cases Cited

Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (recognition of Sixth Amendment right to conflict‑free counsel)
Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (posttrial conflict claims require demonstration of an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel’s performance)
Taylor v. Grounds, 721 F.3d 809 (7th Cir.) (criticized Echols and required assessment of discarded defense’ s plausibility and potential harm to codefendant)
United States v. Fahey, 769 F.2d 829 (1st Cir. 1985) (two‑part test: plausible alternative defense and proof it was forgone due to other loyalties)
People v. Echols, 74 Ill. 2d 319 (Ill.) (old rule that mere availability of strategy favoring one codefendant does not create hostility — overruled)
People v. Mahaffey, 165 Ill. 2d 445 (Ill.) (representation by partners/associates treated like single‑attorney joint representation)
People v. Orange, 168 Ill. 2d 138 (Ill.) (joint representation not per se Sixth Amendment violation)
People v. Terry, 99 Ill. 2d 508 (Ill.) (explains common‑design rule and accountability)