## Facts

- A Virginia jury convicted Walter Mickens, Jr. of capital murder for killing 17-year-old Timothy Hall during or after an attempted forcible sodomy and sentenced Mickens to death.
- Before being appointed to represent Mickens, appointed lead counsel Bryan Saunders had been representing Hall in unrelated juvenile assault and concealed-weapon matters.
- After Hall’s death, the juvenile court dismissed Hall’s pending charges; the same judge later appointed Saunders to represent Mickens in the capital case.
- The appointment occurred without an on-the-record disclosure of Saunders’s prior representation of Hall.
- Saunders did not disclose the prior representation to the court, co-counsel, or Mickens.
- The conflict issue was not raised at trial; it was later discovered during federal habeas investigation.

## Issues

1. When a trial court fails to inquire into a potential conflict it knew or reasonably should have known about, does the Sixth Amendment require automatic reversal upon showing a conflict, or must the defendant show the conflict adversely affected counsel’s performance?
2. Does a trial judge’s failure to inquire constitute an independent Sixth Amendment violation, apart from any effect on counsel’s performance?
3. How far does the presumed-prejudice rule associated with conflict-of-interest doctrine extend beyond multiple concurrent representation?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit’s judgment denying habeas relief, in a 5–4 decision.
- A defendant must establish that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected counsel’s performance, even when the trial court failed to inquire into a potential conflict it knew or should have known about.
- The trial court’s failure to inquire does not itself amount to a standalone Sixth Amendment violation requiring automatic reversal.
- The Court declined to expand automatic-reversal or presumed-prejudice rules to this setting and concluded Mickens did not show an adverse effect on counsel’s performance.

## Legal Principles

- Ineffective-assistance claims generally require outcome prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, with limited categories where prejudice is presumed.
- Under Cuyler v. Sullivan (as applied by the Court), a conflict-of-interest claim requires proof of an actual conflict and an adverse effect on counsel’s performance; once adverse effect is shown, separate proof of outcome prejudice is not required.
- Automatic reversal applies in the Holloway v. Arkansas setting of compelled multiple representation over timely objection and a court’s failure to respond; absent such circumstances, adverse effect must be shown.
- A trial court’s failure to inquire into a known or reasonably knowable potential conflict does not, by itself, establish a Sixth Amendment violation; the constitutional question turns on adverse effect.
- The Court cautioned against extending Sullivan’s presumed-prejudice framework beyond multiple concurrent representation, though it assumed arguendo that Sullivan applied and still required proof of adverse effect.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a conflict-of-interest claim based on a court’s failure to inquire does not warrant automatic reversal; the defendant must prove the conflict adversely affected counsel’s performance, and Mickens failed to make that showing.


Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (2002)