Baldassare Amato v. United States

Since this Court’s decision in Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (2002), the lower courts have been split over several important constitutional issues that regularly arise in the context of ineffective assistance of counsel claims based on a conflict of interests. This case presents the following questions concerning those issues:

1. Under what circumstances is the automatic reversal rule from the decision in Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 484 (1978) triggered after Mickens?

2. Does Sixth Amendment analysis under Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980) apply to both successive and concurrent conflicts - a question expressly left open by this Court in Mickens?

3. Under what circumstances is an evidentiary hearing required when a claim sel based on a conflict of interests is raised?

4. Does a showing of “adverse effect” under Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980) require proof that a plausible alternative strategy expressly was foregone because of the conflict under which counsel was operating or is it sufficient to show that it was inherently in conflict with the attorney’s duties to the other client?