Kiley v. United States, No. 17-2428 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The court held that counsel's conflict did not adversely affect the adequacy of his representation of petitioner at trial; the district court did not clearly err in finding that counsel's strategy was reasonable in the circumstances, the evidence of petitioner's guilt was overwhelming, and alternative strategies petitioner proposed were not objectively reasonable; and petitioner failed to show that the conflict diminished counsel's credibility in the jury's eyes. The court also held that the district court did not clearly err by finding that counsel did not know that the funds at issue were stolen and that there was insufficient evidence to support a reasonable inference that petitioner knew, or should have known, that the funds at issue were illegitimate. Finally, the district court did not clearly err by finding that emails were insufficient to raise an inference that counsel was entangled with the conspiracy.
Court Description: Wollman, Author, with Colloton and Benton, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. For Kiley's direct appeal, see U.S. v. Beckman, 787 F.3d 466 (8th Cir. 2015). Kiley failed to show any adverse effect from his trial attorney's conflict of interest; the trial strategy counsel adopted was one a reasonable attorney would have adopted absent a conflict; the evidence against Kiley was overwhelming and the alternative defense strategies he proposed were not objectively reasonable; nor has Kiley shown that the conflict diminished counsel's credibility in the jury's eyes; there was no evidence that the counsel knew the funds Kiley sent him as a retainer were stolen; the evidence was also insufficient to support a reasonable inference that counsel knew, or should have known, that the funds were illegitimate; the district court did not clearly err in finding certain emails were insufficient to raise an inference that counsel was entangled in Kiley's conspiracy.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.