ILNews

Man not prejudiced by attorney's assistance

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Even though a defendant's counsel was found to be ineffective based on his "television fantasy" trial strategy, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court denial of his petition for habeas corpus because he didn't show he was prejudiced by his attorney's performance.

In Cleveland C. Bynum v. Bruce Lemmon, No. 07-2634, Bynum contended his trial attorney, Charles Graddick, was ineffective for failing to put him on the stand at the hearing on his motion to suppress his post-arrest confessions to murdering five people. Bynum gave two separate statements to the police regarding the murders. The Indiana Court of Appeals and Lake County post-conviction court affirmed his convictions, finding Graddick's assistance not to be ineffective. The District Court did find Bynum's attorney's assistance to be ineffective, but ruled it didn't prejudice him.

Bynum claimed before trial he told Graddick the police threatened him when he asked for an attorney and that they would charge his fiancee with obstruction of justice, leaving their son in protective services. Because of those alleged threats, Bynum said he agreed to sign a Miranda rights waiver form and make his first of two statements.

Instead of having Bynum testify at the mid-trial suppression hearing, Graddick only questioned the officers, whose testimony contradicted what Bynum told Graddick. At an evidentiary hearing for post-conviction relief, Graddick testified he decided to move to suppress the confessions during trial because he thought there were holes in Bynum's testimony and he didn't want to give the state advanced notice of his trial strategy.

Using the first prong of the test under Strickland, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that Graddick provided ineffective assistance. Graddick's plan to get evidence of coercion from the police through the officers' testimony was considered by the District Court as not trial strategy but "television fantasy." That strategy failed and Bynum was left with no evidence that his two confessions to police were coerced. And, Graddick's reason for keeping Bynum off the stand because he couldn't withstand cross-examination was baseless, wrote Judge Ilana Rovner.

"The only way Bynum could have succeeded on his motion to suppress was to put forth evidence of coercion through his own testimony. And any prejudicial testimony Bynum gave at the suppression hearing would not have affected any other part of the proceedings," she wrote. "Graddick thus had no reasonable option but to put Bynum on the stand."

However, Bynum failed to prove he was prejudiced by Graddick's ineffectiveness. Judge Rovner wrote that the 7th Circuit judges could readily assume Bynum would have been acquitted had the two confessions been suppressed because the state was left with little evidence. The state courts ruled that it wasn't reasonably probable that had Bynum testified, he would have succeeded on his motion to suppress. That conclusion wasn't contrary to Indiana Supreme Court precedent or based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented, wrote the judge.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. My mother got temporary guardianship of my children in 2012. my husband and I got divorced 2015 the judge ordered me to have full custody of all my children. Does this mean the temporary guardianship is over? I'm confused because my divorce papers say I have custody and he gets visits and i get to claim the kids every year on my taxes. So just wondered since I have in black and white that I have custody if I can go get my kids from my moms and not go to jail?

  2. Someone off their meds? C'mon John, it is called the politics of Empire. Get with the program, will ya? How can we build one world under secularist ideals without breaking a few eggs? Of course, once it is fully built, is the American public who will feel the deadly grip of the velvet glove. One cannot lay down with dogs without getting fleas. The cup of wrath is nearly full, John Smith, nearly full. Oops, there I go, almost sounding as alarmist as Smith. Guess he and I both need to listen to this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRnQ65J02XA

  3. Charles Rice was one of the greatest of the so-called great generation in America. I was privileged to count him among my mentors. He stood firm for Christ and Christ's Church in the Spirit of Thomas More, always quick to be a good servant of the King, but always God's first. I had Rice come speak to 700 in Fort Wayne as Obama took office. Rice was concerned that this rise of aggressive secularism and militant Islam were dual threats to Christendom,er, please forgive, I meant to say "Western Civilization". RIP Charlie. You are safe at home.

  4. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  5. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

ADVERTISEMENT