Walter Mickens, Jr.,petitioner v. John B. Taylor, Warden, Sussex I State Prison,respondent
Docket: 00-4
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; March 26, 2001; Federal Appellate Court
Walter Mickens, Jr. appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding his motion to stay the issuance of the mandate and to stay his execution, previously denied by the court. The motion was filed on March 16, 2001, and the Commonwealth responded on March 19, 2001. The court's decision to deny the stay was made by a majority vote, with Judges Michael, Motz, and King dissenting. Judge Michael's dissent highlighted several key points: Mickens was sentenced to death for murder while represented by a court-appointed attorney who had previously represented the murder victim, creating a conflict of interest. Mickens was unaware of this conflict, which prevented him from objecting. The state judge who appointed the lawyer should have recognized the conflict and failed to inquire further, as established in Cuyler v. Sullivan. The dissent argued that the conflict was genuine and, based on Wood v. Georgia, Mickens was entitled to a new trial. Additionally, the dissent noted that in another circuit, Mickens would likely receive habeas relief. The dissenting judges asserted that Mickens should not face execution before being afforded a fair opportunity to seek Supreme Court review. The majority's denial of the stay was thus contested on the grounds of ineffective legal representation and the implications of the conflict of interest in Mickens's case.