Criminal Procedure — conflict of interest

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Criminal Procedure — conflict of interest

A defendant charged with transporting a minor in interstate commerce for the purpose of prostitution is not entitled to a new trial, even though his attorney had previously represented one of the prostitutes.

“It does not matter which side bears the burden of persuasion on that subject. The record compiled before the district court entered its judgment supplies not the smallest reason to believe that a conflict adversely affected Lynch’s work for Phillips. To show prejudice, Phillips would have to establish that, but for the conflict, he would not have pleaded guilty. See, e.g., Hall, 371 F.3d at 974. Yet the record does not suggest that Lynch unduly pressured Phillips to plead guilty—or would have had any reason to do so. No evidence implies that Lynch learned from Musial any privileged information that would have limited the scope of cross-examination. What’s more, the United States represents that Musial would not have been called as a witness had a trial been held. (The indictment does not mention her as either a participant or a victim, and she had refused to be interviewed by any agent of the federal government; the prosecutor was unlikely to call a person whose testimony might well have favored the defense.) And we know that Musial was not called as a witness and did not submit evidence any other way in the sentencing proceeding actually held. Prejudice is unlikely, so Phillips is not entitled to relief.”

Affirmed.

10-2154 & 11-1498 Phillips v. U.S.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Lefkow, J., Easterbrook, J.