## Facts

- In April 1984, Carol Jones was found murdered in her Grants Pass, Oregon home; two of her children, Michael (14) and Tanya (10), were missing, and a .44-caliber revolver was missing.
- Robert A. McClure, a friend of Jones, became a suspect after his fingerprints were found in blood at the home and he was arrested days later.
- McClure’s mother retained attorney Christopher Mecca, who met with McClure in jail multiple times.
- During these meetings, McClure provided Mecca information (including a hand-drawn map) pointing to two remote locations where the children could be found; Mecca believed the children might still be alive based on McClure’s statements and the uncertainty about their condition.
- On May 1, 1984, Mecca arranged for his secretary to place an anonymous call to law enforcement providing directions to the two locations reflected on the map.
- Deputies located the children’s bodies at the identified sites, more than 60 miles apart; each child had died from a single gunshot wound to the head.
- Mecca withdrew, and McClure was indicted and tried for three aggravated murders; the prosecution introduced evidence stemming from the discovery of the bodies and testimony about the anonymous call.
- McClure was convicted and imprisoned; he later sought post-conviction relief and then federal habeas relief, claiming Mecca’s disclosure violated the Sixth Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether the state courts unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in rejecting McClure’s claim that counsel’s disclosure of client information constituted ineffective assistance under *Strickland v. Washington*.
2. Whether counsel’s conduct created an “actual conflict of interest” under *Cuyler v. Sullivan* such that prejudice should be presumed.
3. Whether, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), federal habeas relief was available given AEDPA’s requirement that the state adjudication be objectively unreasonable.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of McClure’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition.
- The court held the state courts did not unreasonably apply *Strickland* in concluding counsel’s actions were not constitutionally deficient and did not warrant relief.
- The court held the state courts did not unreasonably apply *Cuyler* in finding no “actual conflict of interest” triggering presumed prejudice.
- The court emphasized AEDPA’s constraint: federal relief requires an objectively unreasonable state-court application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent, not mere disagreement.

## Legal Principles

- Under AEDPA, a federal court may grant habeas relief only if the state court’s adjudication involved an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law.  
- Under *Strickland*, ineffective assistance requires deficient performance (outside the wide range of reasonable professional assistance) and resulting prejudice (a reasonable probability of a different outcome absent the deficiency).  
- Professional-ethics violations do not automatically establish a Sixth Amendment violation; constitutional ineffectiveness is assessed under *Strickland*’s standards.  
- Under *Cuyler*, presumed prejudice requires an “actual conflict” where counsel actively represents conflicting interests; difficult judgment calls motivated by third-party safety concerns do not necessarily satisfy that standard.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that, given AEDPA deference, the state courts reasonably rejected McClure’s Sixth Amendment claims based on counsel’s anonymous disclosure intended to locate missing children, concluding there was neither constitutionally ineffective assistance under *Strickland* nor an actual conflict under *Cuyler* warranting presumed prejudice.


McClure v. Thompson, 323 F.3d 1233 (9th Cir. 2003)