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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What Mr. Bir is paying is actually Undifferentiated Family Support, which is a mixture of child support and spousal maintenance. If the courts had labeled accurately labeled the transfer payment, I think that Mr. Bir would have fewer objections to paying it because both Spousal Maintenance and Undifferentiated Family Support are tax deductions for the paying party and taxable to the receiving party. I brought this issue up with my family court judge when my voluntarily unemployed ex-wife was using the 'child support' transfer payment to support both herself and out children. Said family court judge stated that I did not know what I was talking about because I did not have a Juris Doctorate, despite my having a printout with dictionary definitions of the legal terms that I was using for documentation.

  2. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  3. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  4. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  5. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?