Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-05059/USCOURTS-ca10-91-05059-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General
Appellee
Stephen Kaiser
Appellee
Dennis Dean Wright
Appellant

Document Text:

-

, UnlJsJ-~o&P06l4 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

"J",ii,th Ci~lt 

SEP O 8 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

DENNIS DEAN WRIGHT, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

STEPHEN KAISER, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL, ) 

State of Oklahoma, ) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 91-5059 

D.C. No. 90-C-855-B) 

( N. D. Okla. ) 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Petitioner-appellant Dennis Wright appeals the district court 

order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, 

Wright argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel 

due to a conflict of interest. He also asserts that the trial 

court committed reversible error when it admitted hearsay 

testimony of a coconspirator prior to establishing the existence 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-5059 Document: 010110089451 Date Filed: 09/09/1991 Page: 1 
of the conspiracy by independent evidence. We exercise 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. 

Wright contends that he was denied his sixth amendment and 

fourteenth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel 

because his counsel represented multiple defendants, creating a 

potential conflict of interest. To demonstrate a violation of the 

right to counsel, the petitioner "must establish that an actual 

conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance." 

Cuyler Y..!.. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 351 (1980); see also Martinez Y..!.. 

Sullivan, 881 F.2d 921, 930-31 (10th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 

S. Ct. 740 (1990). Cuyler establishes that a potential conflict 

is not prejudicial and does not constitute a sixth amendment 

violation. Because Wright has failed to demonstrate -- and 

because the record does not show -- an actual conflict of 

interest, the petition must be denied on this ground. 

Construing Wright's arguments liberally, he essentially 

contends that the admission of the coconspirator's hearsay 

statements violated state law and the Confrontation Clause of the 

sixth amendment. Wright argues that the existence of a conspiracy 

must be demonstrated by independent evidence before hearsay 

testimony of a coconspirator can be admitted. Wright's 

contentions fail on both state law and sixth amendment grounds. 

First, errors of state law cannot be reviewed by this court on a 

habeas petition. See Lewis Y..!.. Jeffers, 110 s. Ct. 3092, 3102 

(1990). Second, the admission of testimony in this case comported 

with constitutional standards and with the United States Supreme 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-5059 Document: 010110089451 Date Filed: 09/09/1991 Page: 2 
Court's decision in Bourjaily ~ United States, 483 U.S. 171 

(1987). 

Bourjaily establishes that a trial court may consider both 

independent evidence and coconspirator hearsay testimony in order 

to determine the existence of a conspiracy by a preponderance of 

the evidence. Id. at 182. Normally, a trial judge should make 

the determinations concerning the existence of a conspiracy before 

allowing the coconspirator statements to be heard by the jury. 

However, the judge has discretion to admit the statements in the 

presence of the jury if they are subsequently "connected up." 

United States~ Mobile Materials, Inc., 881 F.2d 866, 869 (10th 

Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 s. Ct. 837 (1990). Absent an abuse 

of discretion, the trial judge's decision will not be reversed. 

United States~ Wolf, 839 F.2d 1387, 1393 (10th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 488 U.S. 923 (1988). 

In the instant case, the trial judge admitted the hearsay 

statements in the presence of the jury and did not make a 

preliminary determination as to whether evidence of a conspiracy 

had been established by a preponderance of the evidence. However, 

the record demonstrates that the hearsay statements were supported 

by independent evidence and also were connected to later testimony 

proving the existence of the conspiracy. Therefore, we cannot say 

that the admission of the hearsay evidence was an abuse of 

discretion. 

Because Wright failed to make any showing of an actual 

conflict of interest and because the trial judge admitted the 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-5059 Document: 010110089451 Date Filed: 09/09/1991 Page: 3 
I 

coconspirator testimony in accordance with constitutional 

standards, we AFFIRM. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-5059 Document: 010110089451 Date Filed: 09/09/1991 Page: 4