Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Mickens v. Taylor

Supreme Court of the United States · 2002 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureSixth Amendmentconflict of interestineffective assistance of counselSixth Amendmentconflict of interesteffective assistanceautomatic reversal

Facts

The case was presented on the assumption that defense counsel had a potential conflict rooted in obligations to a former client. Petitioner argued that the trial judge failed to make the inquiry required when a court knows or reasonably should know of a particular conflict. He contended that this failure alone should reduce his burden and require reversal upon a showing of a conflict, without proof that the conflict adversely affected counsel's performance. The lower court found no such adverse effect.

Issue

When a trial court fails to inquire into a potential conflict of interest that it knew or reasonably should have known about, must a defendant still show that the conflict adversely affected counsel's performance in order to obtain reversal? Or does the failure to inquire itself justify automatic reversal upon a showing of conflict alone?

Rule

Automatic reversal under Holloway applies only when defense counsel is forced to represent codefendants over a timely objection, unless the trial court has determined there is no conflict. Outside that setting, including when the trial court fails to conduct a Sullivan-mandated inquiry, a defendant must establish that the conflict of interest adversely affected counsel's performance; prejudice is then presumed without any further Strickland showing of probable effect on the outcome.

🔒

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, one court-appointed lawyer is assigned to represent two brothers charged in the same armed robbery. Before trial, the lawyer tells the judge that each brother plans to blame the other and asks for separate counsel, but the judge denies the request without determining whether any conflict exists. Both are convicted.

On appeal by one brother, which standard applies to his Sixth Amendment conflict claim?

Explanation. Automatic reversal is limited to the Holloway situation described by the majority: defense counsel is forced to represent codefendants over a timely objection, unless the trial court has determined there is no conflict. In that setting, the defendant need not prove adverse effect or outcome prejudice.