## Facts

- John Sullivan, a Pennsylvania defendant indicted with two others for the same murders, was represented by privately retained counsel.
- Two lawyers represented all three defendants in varying degrees across their separate trials.
- Sullivan was tried first; neither Sullivan nor counsel objected to the multiple representation or sought separate counsel.
- At trial, the defense rested at the close of the prosecution’s case; Sullivan did not testify and called no witnesses.
- In later collateral proceedings, evidence conflicted on whether the defense strategy was influenced by concern for the co-defendants’ upcoming trials.
- Sullivan was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment; the co-defendants were later acquitted.

## Issues

1. Whether a state court’s conclusion that there was no multiple representation is a factual finding entitled to deference on federal habeas review, or a mixed question of law and fact subject to independent review.
2. Whether ineffective assistance by privately retained counsel can support federal habeas relief for a state conviction under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
3. Whether a defendant who did not object at trial to multiple representation must show an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel’s performance, rather than a mere possibility of conflict.
4. Whether trial courts have a constitutional duty to inquire sua sponte into multiple representation absent objection or special circumstances.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held that the state court’s “no multiple representation” conclusion was a mixed determination of law and fact and was not insulated from federal review as a purely factual finding.
- The Court held that inadequate performance by privately retained counsel can violate the Constitution because the state obtains the conviction through a trial that must satisfy constitutional standards.
- The Court rejected the rule that the possibility of conflict alone establishes a Sixth Amendment violation when no objection was made at trial.
- The Court held that, absent a timely objection, a defendant must show an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel’s performance.
- The Court held that trial courts are not constitutionally required to initiate an inquiry into multiple representation without objection or special circumstances, though they may do so as a matter of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- On federal habeas review, deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) applies to state determinations of historical facts, not to mixed questions assigning legal significance to those facts.
- The Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance applies in state criminal trials regardless of whether counsel is appointed or privately retained; a conviction obtained through constitutionally deficient representation is attributable to the state.
- When a defendant raises no trial objection to joint or multiple representation, a Sixth Amendment conflict claim requires proof that counsel actively represented conflicting interests and that the conflict adversely affected counsel’s performance.
- A mere possibility of conflict, without an actual conflict and adverse effect, does not warrant reversal or habeas relief.
- A trial court’s failure to inquire into multiple representation is not itself a constitutional violation absent objection or circumstances that indicate a substantial risk of conflict.

## Conclusion

Cuyler established that unobjected-to multiple representation violates the Sixth Amendment only upon a showing of an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel’s performance, and it confirmed that retained counsel’s ineffectiveness can support habeas relief while rejecting a general constitutional duty for trial courts to inquire sua sponte into joint representation.


Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980)