## Facts

- Gilbert Rivera, an Illinois prisoner, sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from a 1974 state murder conviction.
- Rivera’s trial counsel, Lionel Livingston, was an experienced criminal defense lawyer who had previously litigated cases involving insanity defenses.
- Rivera’s father initially contacted a law firm that used an intake sheet process; neither the intake sheet nor transferred public defender materials mentioned any psychiatric history.
- Livingston met with Rivera at least ten times before trial; Rivera appeared lucid and coherent, did not disclose psychiatric treatment or hospitalizations, and consistently favored a self-defense theory.
- Livingston did not specifically ask Rivera about mental-health history, contact family members about Rivera’s background, seek psychiatric records, or request competency/sanity evaluations.
- Postconviction development showed Rivera had a significant psychiatric history (including antipsychotic medication use, suicide attempt(s), and psychiatric hospitalizations).
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing focused on whether trial counsel had notice of Rivera’s psychiatric history yet failed to investigate a potential insanity defense.

## Issues

1. Whether trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and present a possible insanity defense where counsel lacked actual notice of psychiatric history and observed no indications requiring further inquiry.
2. Whether Rivera showed prejudice—i.e., a reasonable probability that investigation and presentation of an insanity defense would have changed the result at trial or sentencing.

## Decision

- The court denied habeas relief on the ineffective-assistance claim based on failure to investigate insanity.
- The court found counsel had no actual notice of Rivera’s psychiatric history and no reliable “red flags” in the file, from family, or from Rivera’s presentation that would have triggered a duty to investigate insanity.
- The court held counsel’s decision to pursue self-defense, given the information reasonably available at the time, fell within reasonable professional judgment.
- The court concluded Rivera failed to establish constitutionally deficient performance and did not demonstrate that further mental-health investigation would likely have altered the outcome.

## Legal Principles

- Ineffective assistance requires (1) objectively unreasonable performance under prevailing professional norms and (2) resulting prejudice shown by a reasonable probability of a different outcome.
- Counsel’s duty to investigate is shaped by what counsel reasonably knows or should know at the time; absent indications of mental illness, counsel is not constitutionally required to initiate a psychiatric inquiry or pursue an insanity defense.
- A strategic choice of defense theory is generally reasonable when it is based on a competent assessment of available information and the defendant’s coherent account and objectives.

## Conclusion

The court held that trial counsel’s failure to investigate an insanity defense did not violate the Sixth Amendment because counsel lacked notice of Rivera’s psychiatric history, observed no indications requiring further inquiry, and reasonably pursued a self-defense strategy; habeas relief was therefore denied on that ground.


United States ex rel. Rivera v. Franzen, 594 F. Supp. 198 (N.D. Ill. 1984)