# Milton Joseph Brown v. United States

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · January 7, 1982 · 665 F.2d 271

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9468646

## Case

- **Full name:** Milton Joseph BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 7, 1982
- **Citations:** 665 F.2d 271; 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 22822
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Tang
- **Judges:** Chambers, Tang, Thompson
- **Cited by:** 14 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9468646

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- describing Cooper as "actual prejudice" test

## Opinion text

TANG, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I fully concur in the above opinion. I write separately only to highlight the standards that should govern the district court’s determination on remand. The district court concluded that the appellant’s representation was not adversely affected because further cross-examination of the D.E.A. agent was highly unlikely to change the verdict against the appellant. Although this is the proper inquiry under the “actual prejudice” test of Cooper v. Fitzharris, 586 F.2d 1325 (9th Cir. 1978) (en banc), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 974 , 99 S.Ct. 1542 , 59 L.Ed.2d 793 (1979), it is not the inquiry required by Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 , 100 S.Ct. 1708 , 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980). To satisfy Cuyler , the district court must determine whether the appellant’s attorney refrained from a more vigorous cross-examination of the D.E.A. agent because of his divided loyalties, and, if so, whether the appellant’s representation would have benefited even marginally from a more aggressive cross-examination.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9468646. Public record. Not legal advice.