## Facts

- Gilbert Rivera, an Illinois prisoner, was convicted in 1974 of murder for a tavern stabbing and sentenced to 20–60 years.
- Rivera’s trial representation shifted from a public defender to privately retained counsel, Lionel Livingston, an experienced criminal defense attorney.
- Livingston received intake notes from the initial law office contact with Rivera’s father and obtained the public defender’s file; neither contained mental-health information.
- Livingston met with Rivera at least ten times; Rivera appeared lucid and did not disclose psychiatric history.
- Livingston pursued a self-defense theory at trial, consistent with Rivera’s expressed preference.
- In federal habeas proceedings, Rivera developed evidence of a prior mental-health history (including hospitalizations, medication, and suicide attempts) not known to Livingston at trial.
- The district court found counsel’s failure to investigate mental health deficient but denied habeas relief for lack of prejudice under Strickland.
- Rivera appealed, arguing Strickland should not apply retroactively and that prejudice should be presumed under Cronic.

## Issues

1. Whether trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to investigate Rivera’s mental health and present an insanity defense.
2. If counsel was ineffective, whether Rivera had to prove prejudice under Strickland, including whether Strickland applied retroactively.
3. Whether the case fell within a Cronic category in which prejudice is presumed.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas relief.
- The court held Rivera was not denied effective assistance because counsel had no objective reason to suspect mental illness requiring investigation or an insanity defense.
- Because no constitutional deficiency was shown, the court did not reach the Strickland retroactivity or Cronic presumed-prejudice arguments.

## Legal Principles

- Ineffective-assistance claims require objectively unreasonable performance under prevailing professional norms; a court may reject the claim at the deficiency stage without reaching prejudice.
- Defense counsel’s duty to investigate mental-health defenses is triggered by reasonably available notice (from the client, records, family, or observable behavior); absent such notice, the Constitution does not require speculative inquiry.
- Strategic choices—such as presenting self-defense rather than insanity—are generally reasonable when based on available information and a reasonable judgment that further investigation is unnecessary.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that counsel’s decision not to investigate or present an insanity defense was constitutionally reasonable where neither the files nor the client’s communications or demeanor suggested mental illness, and counsel pursued a self-defense strategy consistent with the client’s wishes; accordingly, habeas relief was properly denied.


United States ex rel. Rivera v. Franzen, 794 F.2d 314 (7th Cir. 1986)