Meyers v. State
| Decision Date | 13 March 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. S94A1513,S94A1513 |
| Citation | 454 S.E.2d 490,265 Ga. 149 |
| Parties | MEYERS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
William S. Richardson, Megan C. De Vorsey, Atlanta, for Meyers.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Rebecca A. Keel, Asst. Dist. Atty., Atlanta, for the State.
Susan V. Boleyn, Mary Beth Westmoreland, Sr. Asst. Attys. Gen., Dept. of Law, Atlanta.
Paige Reese Whitaker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Law, Atlanta, for other appellee.
Aaron Meyers was convicted of felony murder, aggravated assault and armed robbery. 1 He appeals, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, and we reverse.
1. After reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the jury's determination of guilt, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty of the crime charged. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
2. Though he raised no objection at trial, Meyers argues on appeal that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel because his attorney's joint representation of himself and his brother constituted a conflict of interest. Under the peculiar facts of this case, we agree.
In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest on the part of his trial counsel, a defendant who raised no objection at trial must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his attorney's performance. Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 348, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 1718, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980). In a case of joint representation of conflicting interests, the evil is in what the advocate is compelled to refrain from doing. Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 490, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 1181-82, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978). Thus, a failure on the part of counsel to pursue an alternative defense theory that is more favorable to one defendant but which would have prejudiced a co-defendant by shifting blame to him may well give rise to an actual conflict of interest. United States v. Mers, 701 F.2d 1321, 1330-31 (11th Cir.1983).
Aaron Meyers and his brother and co-defendant, Arthur Meyers, are twins. Both were indicted for malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault and armed robbery. Aaron was convicted of felony murder, aggravated assault and armed robbery, while Arthur was acquitted of all charges. One of the victims, an employee at the pawn shop who was wounded in the armed robbery, testified that when she arrived at work, Aaron and Arthur, along with co-defendant Alvino Cooper 2, were sitting in front of the shop, and that one of the twins asked her for the time. When asked at trial to indicate which of the twins had asked the time, the victim indicated that she could not tell the brothers apart and later explained to the judge that she did not know which of the two had been sitting next to Cooper because she did not "know the difference between those two." She went on to testify that Cooper and one of the twins later entered the shop, shot and killed a fellow employee, shot and wounded her, and robbed the store.
Moving for a directed verdict at the close of the state's evidence, counsel for the Meyers twins argued that since only one of his clients had been in the store, the other one of his clients was obviously not in the store and that a directed verdict of acquittal was proper with regard to that client. The trial court did not and could not grant the motion, since it lay with the jury to determine the facts, but the argument made by defense counsel illustrates the conflict of interest which faced him.
At trial, the testimony of the brothers was virtually identical. However,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tolbert v. State
...is shown to have refrained from raising a potentially meritorious issue due to the conflict") (citation omitted); Meyers v. State, 265 Ga. 149, 150(2), 454 S.E.2d 490 (1995). That said, a mere failure to emphasize the different culpability of each co-defendant does not always and necessaril......
-
Curry v. State
...affected his attorney's performance. Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 348, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980). Meyers v. State, 265 Ga. 149, 150(2), 454 S.E.2d 490 (1995). Daniels claims that an actual conflict existed based on his testimony during cross-examination by the State that he......
-
Woods v. State
...performance was adversely affected by the conflict. Yeck v. Goodwin, 985 F.2d 538, 541 (11th Cir.1993). See also Meyers v. State, 265 Ga. 149(2), 454 S.E.2d 490 (1995). Accord United States v. Hall, 200 F.3d 962, 966 (6th Cir.2000) (in appeal by brothers Rex and Stanley Hall from drug convi......
-
Ellis v. State
...even after learning that they relied upon inconsistent versions of their defense of innocent presence. See Meyers v. State, 265 Ga. 149, 150(2), 454 S.E.2d 490 (1995). Compare Lamb v. State, 267 Ga. 41, 42(1), 472 S.E.2d 683 (1996). Ellis, unlike Callahan, eventually admitted to Ms. Lyons t......