## Facts

- Christopher A. Burger and Thomas Stevens were jointly indicted for murder in Georgia; both confessed and were tried separately.
- Burger was convicted of murder and sentenced to death.
- Burger was represented by court-appointed counsel Alvin Leaphart; Stevens was represented by Leaphart’s law partner, and Leaphart assisted Stevens’s defense and prepared appellate briefs for both defendants.
- At each trial, the defense strategy was to emphasize the other codefendant’s culpability to avoid a death sentence.
- The Georgia Supreme Court ordered a new sentencing hearing; Burger was again sentenced to death, and the sentence was affirmed.
- In Burger’s later federal habeas petition, he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel based on (1) a conflict of interest from overlapping representation and (2) inadequate investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence at the penalty phase.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the federal district court denied relief; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether Burger’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance was violated because counsel, whose law partner represented the codefendant and whom counsel assisted, had an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel’s performance.
2. Whether counsel provided ineffective assistance at sentencing by failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence, under the deficient-performance and prejudice standards.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of federal habeas relief in a 5–4 decision.
- The Court held Burger failed to show an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel’s performance.
- The Court held counsel’s penalty-phase investigation and strategic choices regarding mitigating evidence did not constitute constitutionally deficient performance and did not prejudice Burger.

## Legal Principles

- Multiple or overlapping representation of codefendants is not per se unconstitutional.
- A conflict-of-interest claim requires a showing that counsel actively represented competing interests and that the conflict adversely affected counsel’s performance.
- Under Strickland v. Washington, a defendant must show (1) deficient performance and (2) prejudice; courts defer to reasonable strategic decisions, including decisions to limit further investigation after a reasonable inquiry.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Burger’s death sentence, concluding that overlapping representation involving law partners did not establish an actual, adverse conflict on this record and that counsel’s penalty-phase investigation and mitigation decisions satisfied Sixth Amendment standards under Strickland.


Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776 (1987)