No. 22-6811
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: 28-usc-2254 conflict-of-interest criminal-justice-system cuyler-standard cuyler-v-sullivan ineffective-assistance prejudice-standard strickland-test strickland-v-washington successive-conflict successive-representation
Latest Conference:
2023-05-18
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
Where a defendant's lawyer owed conflicting duties to her and a former client, should she receive a new trial if the actual conflict adversely affected the lawyer's performance, or must the defendant prove it reasonably likely that unconflicted counsel would have obtained a better outcome at trial?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Where a defendant's lawyer owed conflicting duties to her and a former client, should she receive a new trial if the actual conflict adversely affected the lawyer's performance, or must the defendant prove it reasonably likely that unconflicted counsel would have obtained a better outcome at trial?
Docket Entries
2023-05-22
Petition DENIED.
2023-05-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/18/2023.
2023-04-28
Reply of petitioner A. B. filed.
2023-04-19
Brief of respondent West Virginia in opposition filed.
2023-03-01
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 19, 2023.
2023-02-28
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 29, 2023 to April 19, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-02-27
Response Requested. (Due March 29, 2023)
2023-02-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/17/2023.
2023-02-17
Waiver of right of respondent West Virginia to respond filed.
2023-02-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 20, 2023)
Attorneys
Ariel Bennett
Matthew David Brummond — Public Defender Services, Petitioner
State of West Virginia
Lindsay Sara See — Office of the West Virginia Attorney General, Respondent