Fiorot v. Oklahoma

How later courts describe this case

• holding that habeas petitioner need not demonstrate adverse effect on representation but need only prove an actual conflict to justify habeas relief on account of a conflict of interest
• rejecting abstention based on "wise judicial administration" because state and federal courts do not have concurrent jurisdiction of federal antitrust claims
• upholding the adequacy of the “no significant history of prior criminal activity” mitigating factor
• "the sharing of an essential facility by two or more competitors accompanied by the exclusion of all other competitors may amount to a violation of the Sherman Act" (emphasis added)
• trial judge did not err in resentencing without further jury deliberations where evidence itself was not improper but only the manner in which it was considered by the court
• counsel’s silence at sentencing, considered alone, might be ascribed to tactical judgment, but when considered cumulatively with other omissions defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel
• not requiring prejudice in cases of extrinsic ineffectiveness
• shooting death of security guard during bank robbery