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. Can I get this form on line,if not where can I obtain one. I am eligible.

  2. What a fine example of the best of the Hoosier tradition! How sad that the AP has to include partisan snark in the obit for this great American patriot and adventurer.

  3. Why are all these lawyers yakking to the media about pending matters? Trial by media? What the devil happened to not making extrajudicial statements? The system is falling apart.

  4. It is a sad story indeed as this couple has been only in survival mode, NOT found guilty with Ponzi, shaken down for 5 years and pursued by prosecution that has been ignited by a civil suit with very deep pockets wrenched in their bitterness...It has been said that many of us are breaking an average of 300 federal laws a day without even knowing it. Structuring laws, & civilForfeiture laws are among the scariest that need to be restructured or repealed . These laws were initially created for drug Lords and laundering money and now reach over that line. Here you have a couple that took out their own money, not drug money, not laundering. Yes...Many upset that they lost money...but how much did they make before it all fell apart? No one ask that question? A civil suit against Williams was awarded because he has no more money to fight...they pushed for a break in order...they took all his belongings...even underwear, shoes and clothes? who does that? What allows that? Maybe if you had the picture of him purchasing a jacket at the Goodwill just to go to court the next day...his enemy may be satisfied? But not likely...bitterness is a master. For happy ending lovers, you will be happy to know they have a faith that has changed their world and a solid love that many of us can only dream about. They will spend their time in federal jail for taking their money from their account, but at the end of the day they have loyal friends, a true love and a hope of a new life in time...and none of that can be bought or taken That is the real story.

  5. Could be his email did something especially heinous, really over the top like questioning Ind S.Ct. officials or accusing JLAP of being the political correctness police.

ADVERTISEMENT