ILNews

7th Circuit: counsel assistance wasn't ineffective

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A defendant didn't receive ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorneys failed to raise the issue of comments made by his victim's mother during the trial, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.

Terry Brown challenged the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief and the District Court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus. During his murder trial, the mother of one of his victims said that "the situation was racist" while she was observing the trial, and while out on the courthouse steps, she said that the courthouse should be treated similarly to the World Trade Center and bombed. She made the comments shortly after Sept. 11, 2001.

Brown's trial counsel declined to request a hearing to determine the impact of the statements on the jury. His appellate counsel didn't raise the issue on appeal.

In order to prevail on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims, Brown had to prove the assistance was objectively unreasonable and resulted in a substantial risk of prejudice, but he failed to prove either.

Given that both Brown and his victim are African-American, it's not clear how the jury would interpret the remark in a manner injurious to Brown, wrote Judge Richard Cudahy in Terry C. Brown v. Alan Finnan, No. 08-3151. In addition, the jury may or may not have heard the comment, so it's reasonable for counsel to not elect to request a hearing following the mother's comments.

"An able attorney might well conclude that his client's cause would best be served by not drawing the jury's attention to issues that are largely, if not completely, irrelevant to his client's guilt or innocence," wrote the judge.

The Circuit Court disagreed with Brown's argument that Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 229 (1954), compels a hearing.

With regards to the mother's comments outside the courthouse, Brown hadn't made any showing that any jurors heard or knew of the comments about bombing the courthouse. He just alleged a juror may have heard the comment, which is an insufficient basis for establishing a Remmer hearing. And even if there was some evidence a juror heard the comments, it's not clear that they would have prejudiced Brown, wrote Judge Cudahy.

Brown also failed in his claim for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. There's no evidence any juror heard the mother's comments outside the courthouse and her in-court comment on the situation was ambiguous and innocuous. There was no need for a hearing and a reasonable appellate counsel could wisely disregard the mother's statements in favor of the issues that weigh on Brown's guilt and sentence.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT