Freeman v. Chandler

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s Rule 60(b) motion, alleging that his initial habeas counsel had failed to properly raise issue as to whether defendant’s trial counsel labored under conflict of interest when said counsel testified on behalf of defendant at defendant’s trial, as well as acted as defendant’s co-counsel. While Dist. Ct. improperly found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider said motion, after finding that said motion served as successive habeas petition, Ct. of Appeal, in considering merits of claim, found that defendant was required to show that any conflict resulted in ineffective assistance of counsel. Ct. further held that defendant had failed to show existence of any prejudice arising out of trial counsel’s dual role as witness and as co-counsel where: (1) counsel testified favorably on behalf of defendant; and (2) there was no chance that counsel’s dual role confused jury since defendant had participated in bench trial.