Ademus Saechao v. Cheryl Eplett

Summary

In this §2254 habeas case, the Seventh Circuit held that a state trial court's disqualification of the petitioner's retained counsel due to a potential conflict of interest was not an unreasonable application of *Wheat v. United States*, 486 U.S. 153 (1988). The court emphasized that the state judiciary's decision was entitled to double deference under AEDPA, particularly where a co-defendant appeared on the prosecution's witness list and had refused a general conflict waiver, creating a serious risk that counsel would have to cross-examine a former client using confidential information. The Seventh Circuit also clarified that its own precedent in *United States v. Turner*, 594 F.3d 946 (7th Cir. 2010), does not constitute "clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court" for purposes of §2254(d)(1), and thus cannot override the discretion afforded to state courts. Key topics: Sixth Amendment right to counsel, conflict of interest, disqualification of retained counsel, AEDPA deference, and *Wheat* standard.

Holdings

1. The state court's decision to disqualify counsel based on the risk of conflict was not an unreasonable application of Wheat, given that Alonso-Bermudez was a potential witness and refused a comprehensive waiver.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court in Wheat v. United States when it disqualified Saechao's chosen counsel based on the risk of conflict of interest.

Disposition

affirmed