Go to:	Briefs Menu	Cases Pending	Cases Decided

MICKENS v. TAYLOR

United States Supreme Court No. 00-9285

---

QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that a defendant must show an actual conflict of interest and an adverse effect in order to establish a Sixth Amendment violation where a trial court fails to inquire into a potential conflict of interest about which it reasonably should have known?

2. Would an affirmative answer to Question 1 be a new rule within the meaning of Teague v. Lane?

ORAL ARGUMENT DATE: November 5, 2001

---

INTRODUCTION

Interest of amicus curiae
Summary of facts and case
Summary of argument

Parts I and II

I. Petitioner has received a full hearing on his conflict claim and failed to show any actual conflict

II. Teague applies to this case and is fairly included in the question presented

Parts III and IV

III. Pertinent Supreme Court precedent squarely states an adverse effect requirement

IV. When the holding of a Supreme Court precedent, by its terms, is contrary to a proposed rule, the latter rule is per se "new," notwithstanding the nuances of other cases

Conclusion