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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT