Cuyler v. Sullivan
Facts
Sullivan and two codefendants were represented in the state proceedings by the same two privately retained lawyers, and no one objected to the joint representation at trial. Sullivan was tried first, and his lawyers rested without presenting any defense evidence; Sullivan was convicted, while his codefendants were later acquitted at separate trials. In state postconviction hearings, one lawyer testified that he did not want to present a defense in Sullivan's trial because doing so might expose witnesses useful in the later trials of the codefendants, while the other lawyer gave contrary testimony. Sullivan then sought federal habeas relief on the ground that the multiple representation denied him effective assistance of counsel.
Issue
May a state prisoner obtain federal habeas relief by showing only that his retained defense counsel represented potentially conflicting interests? Also, when no objection to multiple representation was made at trial, does the Sixth Amendment require the trial court to inquire into possible conflicts on its own?
Rule
Multiple representation does not violate the Sixth Amendment unless it gives rise to a conflict of interest. When a defendant raised no objection at trial, he must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance; a mere possibility of conflict is insufficient. A trial court need not initiate an inquiry into multiple representation unless it knows or reasonably should know that a particular conflict exists.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
Under the Sixth Amendment, was the trial judge constitutionally required to inquire on the judge's own initiative into the propriety of the joint representation?