The H on or abl e V i rg i ni a M. Kendal l , Dis t ri c tJ udge f or the  U nited States D istrict C ou rt, N or the rn D istrict of Ill ino is, s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on. 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 2350 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. R OO S EVELT T URNER, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 3:05- cr -30015

—David R. H ern don, Chief Ju dge .
A RGUED J AN UA RY 20, 2009

— D ECI DE D F EB RU AR Y 2, 2010

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, C hief J u dg e, S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e, a nd K ENDALL, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  S YKES, Cir cu i tJudge . The di str i ct c ourtdi squal i fi ed Ro o se ve l t Tur ne r ’ s r et aine d co uns el f r o m re pr es en ting h i m i n thi s co cai ne- conspi ra cy case bec ause the a tto rney2 N o. 08

- 2350

was a l so r epr es en tinga n allege d c o co ns pi r at o r i n s en te nci ng pro ceedi ngs. The questi on f orus i s whether thi s v i ol ate d Tu rner ’ s S i xth A m endm ent r i ght t o counsel ofhi s cho i ce. I n F eb r ua r y 2 00 5 th e g o ve r nm ent i ndi ct ed Tur ne r a nd ei g hto th er s f o r c o ns pi r i ngt o di st r ibut e co ca i ne i n Al to n, I l l i no is. But Tu r ne r was no t ar r es te d unt i l J une 2 00 6, a nd by that tim e m any o fthe al l ege d coco nspir ato rs had pl ea ded g ui l tya nd c o o per at ed wi ththe g o ve r nm en t. One ex c ep tio n w as A n th on y W om ac k. H is fi rs t tria l en d e d in a hungj ur y. O n retr i alW o m ac kwas c o nv i ct ed, a nd he w as aw ait in g s en te n c in g w h en th e a u t h o r i tie s fin ally caught up w ith T urner . I n the m eanti m e, W om ack hi re d a new atto rney

— Irl B ar is

— to re prese nt hi m atse ntenci ng. Once i n custody, Turnerwas i ni ti al l y r epres ented by ap p oin te d co u n se l, b u t h is fa m ily s o on h ire d B ar is a s h is at to rn ey . Th e g ov er n m en t q u es tio n ed w h et h er th is j o i ntr epr es en ta ti o n w as per m i ss ibl e an d a sk ed th e cou rt fora hearing on the m atter. The go ver nm ent s ugges ted thatBari s’ s r epres entat i on ofbo th defend an ts prese nted an i nsurm ountabl e co nfl i ct ofi nter estbec ause one m i ght deci de to co oper ate with the g ove rnm ent a gai nst the o ther

. Bari s co untere d that ther e was no actualco nfl i ct

— norany ser i ous pot enti alf or confl i ct

—be ca us e ne i th er cl i en t want ed to as si st the g o ve r nm en t an d pr o se cut o r s ha d not sh o wn th e sl i g ht es t i nt er es t i n se cur i ng ei th erde fen dan t’ s te st i m o ny aga i nst the o ther

. M or eov er, bo th defen d ants w ai ved an y c o nfl i cto fi nt er es t. The di st r i ctj udg e f o cus ed o n the possi bil itytha t one defe nd ant m i ght pr ovi de i nfo rm ati onN o. 08

- 2350 3

orte sti m ony aga i nst th e other and hel d that thi s was s uffi c i e ntt o c r eat e a n “ a b s o l ut e ” c o nfl i c to fi nt e r e s t
. On th is b as is t h e jud ge d isq u alifie d B ar is as Tu rn er ’s c ou n se l. A j ur y c o nv i c t e d T ur ne r o fc o ns pir acy, a nd h e a pp e a l e d, c h allengi ng the j ud ge’ s di squal i fi cati on o fhi s cho sen c ou n se l. W e r ev er se . The S i xth Am endm en t g i ve s a defen dan t w ho does n ot re quir e a pp oi nted counselthe ri ght t o c h oo se w h o w ill rep re se n t h im
. See Wh e a t v. U nited Sta tes , 486 U
. S. 1 5 3 , 159, 164 (1988 ). Th e Sup rem e C ou rt recogn izes a p resu m p tion in favor ofthe d efend an t’s c h oic e, alt h ou gh th is p re su m p tio n m ay b e o v er rid d en if th er e i s ana ctua l c o nfl i cto fi nt er es t o r a “ se r i o us p ote nti alf orco nfl i ct. ” Id

. a t1 6 4
. Whe r e the r e i s a n a ctual orse ri ous pot enti al c on fl i ct, two as pects ofthe Si xth A m en d m en t ri gh t to cou ns el are in ten sion: th e accu sed ’s ri ght t o counselo f h is choi ce a nd hi s r i ght t o the e ffecti ve as sis ta n c e o f co u n se l. Id. at 159- 61. J oin t repre senta ti on i s no t, ho wev er, a pe r s e vi o l at i o n o fthe right to the effe c tiv e a ss ist an c e o f co u n se l. Id. at 160- 61. H er e, the di st r i ctc o ur t di squa l i fied Bar i s ba se d o n the possi bil itythatW om ack m i ght c oo pera te aga i nst Turner or vic e v er sa . B u t t h is p o s s i b ility for c on flict is p re se n t in near l y e ver y c ase o fj oi nt repres entat i on. The di str i ct cour t’ s a nal ysi s di sr ega rded the presum pti on i n fav oro f the d efendant’ s cho sen c ounseland i m posed wh at a mo u n t s t o a p e r s e r u l e a g a i ns t j o i n tr e p r e s e n t a t i o n . As such, the cour t’ s di squal i fi cati on o rderwas p re m i sed o n a m i sta ke of law a nd vi ol ate d Tu rner ’ s r i ght t o counsel of h is c h oic e. B ec au se t h i s v i ola tio n is st ru c tu ra l, U nited4 N o. 08

- 2350 Sta tes v. G o nz a lez -Lo pez , 548 U .S. 1 4 0, 15 0 (2 00 6), T u rn er is en tit led to a n ew tria l.

I . B a c kg r o und I n Feb ruar y 2 005 a gra nd j ury i nd i cted Turner, W om ack, and seve n others o n char ge s of conspi ri ng to di str ibut e coca ine in viol ation of 21 U .S .C . § § 841(a)(1), 84 1(b) ( 1) ( A)( i i ) , a nd 8 46
. ( A supe r se d i ngi ndi ct m en t fi l ed i n Oc tober20 05 add ed thr ee m or e defendants as coco nspir ato rs . ) The go vern m ent a l l ege d that fro m Janu ary 2003 to J an ua ry 2005, Tu rner an d t h e others conspi r ed to di st r ibut e l ar g e qua nt i ti es o fc o ca i ne i n a nd aro und Al to n, I l l i no i s. M o sto fthe a l l eg ed co ns pi r at o rs w er e quickl y r ounded up. Turner, however, r em ai ned at l ar ge unti l J une 200 6. N ea r l y a l l o fthe c oco ns pi r at o r s pl ea ded g ui l tya nd coo perat ed w ith the go ver nm ent, but W om ack el ecte d to go to tr i al

. The gov er nm ent’ s fi rs t att em pt to co nvi ct W om ac k ended in a m i str i albec ause the j ury coul d not r ea cha v er di ct
. O n retri ali n Apr i l 2 00 6, the j ur y f o und W om ack gui l ty. The cas e a gai nst hi m r el i ed l ar gelyo n the k i nd o fev i dence cu sto m ar i l y intro du ced i n drugco ns pi r ac y t r i al s: tapes o ft el eph o ne i nt er ce pts c aptur i ng conve rs ati ons am ong thos e a sso ci ate d w i th the char ged co ns pi r ac y a nd the te st i m o ny ofs ev er alo fthe c o o per at i ng coco nspir ato rs . Du ri ng bo th o fhi s t ri al s, W om ack w as re p re se n ted by A ttorn ey John A bell. A fter his convic t ion , how ever, W om ack hi re d A tto rneyI rlBari s t o re prese nt hi m f orN o. 08

- 2350 5 sente nci ng and appel l ate purposes . Bari s is an experi enced cri m i nal

- defe nse att or ney i n pract i ce si nce 1948 an d an ad j un ct p rofessor ofc r im inal tri al pract ice and proc ed ure at W as h in gton U ni ver si ty Scho olo fLaw f orthe l ast 25 yea rs . H e h as tr i ed a v ar i etyo ffedera l cas es i nv o l vingwhi te
- co l l arc r i m es , drugc o ns pi r ac i es , a nd ra c ke te er in g off en se s, an d h as arg u ed n u m er ou s a p p ea ls i n fi ve orsi x federa l ci rcuits. H e e nter ed hi s a pp ear ance on be hal fo fW om ack on J une 1, 20 06. A s W om ack aw ai ted se ntenci ng, pol i ce fi nal l y a rr est ed Turner on J une 14, 2 00 6. Court

- appoint ed att or neys re p re se n te d T u rn er fo r th e n ex t six w ee ks . T u rn er ’s fa m ily then hi re d Bari s t o re prese nt hi m , and on Au gu st 1, 20 06, B ar i s en te r ed hi s appe ar an ce a s Tur ne r ’ s co uns el

. The gov er nm ent i m m edi ate l y a ske d the dist rict co urt to conduct a hear i ng under Rul e 4 4( c) o f t h e Federa l Rule s o f Cr i m i na l Pr o ce dur e to ev al ua te th e effec t o fa nypo te nti alc o nfl i cto fi nt er es t o n e ac h d efendant ’ s r i g htt o the effe c tiv e a ss ist an c e of co u n se l. See F ED . R. C RIM . P. 44( c) ( o ut l i ni ngthe c o ur t’ s dut y o fi nqui r y in a c as e o fj o i nt re prese ntation )
. The go ver nm ent’ s m oti on i nti m ate d that W om ack m i ght b e ca l l ed to te sti fy a t Turner ’ s tri al orm i ght purs ue se n te nci ng o r appell ate st ra teg i es advers e t o Turner’ s int erest s, o r al ter nati vel y, Turner m i ght b e a ske d to provi de i nfo rm ati on o r testim on y t o ass i st the g ove rnm ent a t W om ack’ s s entenci ng. A t the Rul e 44( c) hear i ng, the gov er nm ent a rgued as a g en er almatt ertha t th e defen dan ts ’ i nt er es ts might beco m e a dvers e in the eve nt that ei thero pted to coo perat e w ith th e govern m en t . B ut the p rosecu tor w as no t m ore6 N o. 08

- 2350 spe ci fi c. He di d no t sa y, f o r exa m pl e, tha t th e g o ve r nmen ti nt e nd e d o r wa s l i k e l y t o s e e kWo mac k ’ s co oper ati o n a nd t es ti m o ny a gainst Tur ne r o r v i ce v er sa . The pros ecuto r did sa y that “ [ a] s a side note, an a tto rney i n m y offi ce has re quested perm i ssi on to tal k to wh oev er [ W om ack’ s] at torney i s t o see i f M r. W om ack i s inter est ed i n coo perat i ng with the Gove rnm ent w i th r ega rd to a so m ew h at u n re lat ed m at te r, c er ta in ly w ith re ga rd to h is na rcoti cs di st r ibut i o n. ” The j udg e so ug htc l ar i fi ca ti o n: “[ Y]o u sai d yourl i n e a ssi sta nt has ask ed f orper m i ssi on to ap p ro ac h W om ac k w ith th e p os sib ilit y o fg ivin g t es tim ony a g a i ns tMr
. T ur ne r ? ” T he p r o s e c ut o r r e s po nded i n the negat i ve: That i s no t a ccurat e, Y ou r H onor . That would notbe ac cu rate
. The l i ne a tt o r ne y who ha s as k ed m e ab o ut M r. W om ack is seeking inform a t ion w ith regard to i nd i vi du al s who purchased co cai ne di re ctl y fro m M r. W om ack, n ot ne cess aril y in form ation w ith regard to M r. Tu rner. O f cou rse, th e issue bec om es one of, onc e an ind ivi d ua l begins to coop erate, th e r e can ’t be l i m i tat i ons on that. The go ver nm ent di d not e xpli ci tl y as k the c ourtto di squ a l i fy Ba r i s . Th e g i s t o f i t s a r g ume nt, ho we ver , was that Bari s’ s j oi nt r epres entat i on o fTurnerand W om ack cr ea te d a n i m per m i ss ibl e co nfl i ctof in te r es t r equi r i ng hi s di squal i fi cati on fro m Turner ’ s ca se. Bari s a rgued that Turnerwas en titl ed und erthe Si xth A m endm ent t o re tai n counselo fh is c h oice
. H e e xplai ned th ate ac h c l i en t’ s f ami l y ha d s epa r at el y r eta i ne d hi m a nd th atb o thTur ne r a nd W o m ac kha d c o ns en te d a fte r c o n-N o. 08

- 2350 7 sul tat i on t o the j oi nt r epres entat i on. H e a l so sai d nei ther T urne r no r W o m ac kha d a ny i nt er es t i n a ss i st i ngthe gov er nm ent a nd not ed that the g ove rnm ent had not ex p ressed any inte rest in seeking eithe r defen d a n t’s coo perat i on aga i nst the othe r. Bari s sai d b oth d efe nd ants w er e p re p ar ed to w aiv e a n y co n flict of in te re st . B ar is i nv i te d the c o urt t o make a pe r so na l i nqui r y o fthe de fen dan ts t o c o nfi r m the i r c o ns en t to the j o i ntr epr es en ta ti o n. Th e j ud g e di d n o tr e s po nd to thi s i nv i t a t i o n. I ns t e a d, th e jud ge ex p r e s s e d h is ge n er al c on c er n th at B ar is c ou ld note ff ec ti ve l y a dvi se o ne o fhi s cl i en ts abo utthe a dva nta g es o fc o o per at i ngwi th the g o ve r nm en t wi th o ut hurti ng th e i nter est s o fhi s o thercl i ent. The j ud ge had presi ded o ver W om ack’ s tr i al and knew that the e vi dence th er e h ad su gg es te d th at T u rn er w as W om ac k’s so le co ca i ne s uppl i er . “ [ B] ec au se the r e w as te st i m o ny i n the W om ack trial relative to T urn er, ” t he j ud ge said , “M r. W om ack i s a per son w i th pote nt ial re l evantkno w l edge w ho co uld be subpoenae d to tes ti fy in the Turner case . And h o w d o y o u g o ab o u tc r o s s - e x a mi n i n gy o u r o wn cl i ent wit h any sor t o fvi gorthatpro perl y r epres ents y o uro th erc l i en t? ” Bar i s rem i nde d the c o ur t th atthe g o ve r nm en t co ul d n ot co m pelW o m ac kt o t es ti fy . The j ud ge cou nt ered : “A nd so then w ha t d oes th e rec ord show, that the a tto rneyf orTurneradvi sed the w i tness to t ak e th e F i fthA m en dm en t? ” Bar i s r es po nde d: “ N o . The att or ney forW om ack m ay advi se hi m [to t ake the Fi fth A m en d m en t].” On the fl i p si de ofthe confl i ct ques ti on, t h e j ud ge sa i d tha t Tur ne r mi g htne ed adv i ce fr o m Ba r i s i fthe8 N o. 08

- 2350 g o ve r nm en t so ug hthi s co o per ati o n i n W o m ac k ’ s se nt e nc i ng, a nd “ M r . Ba r i s i s n o tg o i ngt o b e i n a p o s i ti on t o do tha tf a i thful l y, ful l y, e xe r c i s i ngh i s ful l p r o fe s s i o na l re spo ns ibi l i ti es to hi s cl i en t be ca us e, o f co ur se , i f he w ere re prese nti ng M r. W om ac k, he wouldn’twant M r. Turner to te st ify ag ain st W om ac k in a sen te n c in g.” B ar is su gg es te d th at th e c ou rt ’s c on c er n s w er e b as ed en tir ely o n s peculatio n. The a tt o r ne y no te d tha t unde r the S upr eme Co ur t’ s dec i si o ns i n Whe at and G o nz a lez -Lo pez , i t was the go ver nm en t’s b urden to es tabl i sh an a ctual confl i ct o fi nter esto r at l eas t a se ri ous pot enti alf or confl i ct, and not ed aga i n that the pr ose cutorhad not sp ecifi cally said h e i nt en d ed to seek either d efend an t’s c o o pe r a t i o n a g a i ns tthe o the r . T he j ud g e r e s po nd e d: “H ow m uc h mor e s pe c i fi c do e s i th a v e t o g e to the r than th er e w ill be a n a p p ro ac h for a p ro ffer , an d h e is cle ar ly a

— if n o t a b so lu te ly go in g t o b e a w itn es s, h e’s cle ar ly a per son w i th extr aor dinar i l y r el evantkno w l ed ge that like ly w ill be a w itn es s.” Perhaps sensing wh ich w ay the wind w as bl owing, Bari s s ugges ted thatt h e courtacc ept Turner ’ s co nfl i ct w ai vernow and revi si t the m att er lat eri fthe pros ecuti on decided to approa ch ei therdefendant abo ut co oper ati ng. “[ L] et ’ s su ppo se tha t th eydo [ appr o ac h on e o fthe de fen da nt s ] , ” Ba r i s s a i d. “ Attha tt i me the i s s ue s c a n be cry stalized and perhaps the f acts can be r eve al ed as to w hat the co nfl i ct i s. H er e, we don’t know. ” The j ud ge r ej ec te d thi s al te r na ti ve , c o nc l udi ngi ns te ad th at th e con fl icts are “absolu te” an d “sp ecifi c,” “they ’re cl ear, th eya r e no t spe cu lative, ” an d “ [ t] he r e’ s no way tha t an y w ai ver can ove rco m e these confl i cts. ” The court e n ter ed an order d isqu ali fyi ng Ba ris from repres en ting T urn er.N o. 08

- 2350 9 The go ver nm ent ne versought e i therdefendant’s as si stance aga i nst the o ther

. W om ac k w as sente nced to 151 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent. W i th new cou n se l, Turner proce eded to a j ury tr i al

. H e w as c onvi cted o fco nspir acy to di st r ibute i n e xc es s o f5 k i l o g r ams o fc o ca i ne a nd s e nt e nc ed t o 3 6 0 mo nths ’ i mpr i s o nme nt
. He a pp e a l e d, c h alle n gin g t h e d i st ric t c ou rt ’s d isq u alific at ion of B ar is as a vio lat ion of h is Six th A m en d m en t rig h t t o re ta in counselo fhi s cho i ce.

I I . Discussi on The Si xth A m endm ent pr ovi des that“[ i ] n al l cr i m i nal pros ecuti ons, the accused s hal l enj oy the r i ght .

. . to have th e A ss ist an c e o f C ou n se l for h is d efe n c e .” U .S. C O NST . amend. VI
. Two as pec ts o fthi s S i xth Am en dm en t r i g ht ar e per ti nent her e: the ri ght o fan a ccused w ho d oes not r equi r e appo i nt ed co uns elt o c ho o se the a tt o r ne y who w ill rep re se n t h im , see Go nz a lez -Lo pez , 548 U
. S. at 14 4- 48; Whe at, 4 86 U
. S. at15 9, and the ri ght t o effecti ve as sis ta n c e of c ou n se l, s e eSt r i ck l and v. Was hi ngt on , 466 U
. S. 668, 687 (1984). Eac h o fthe se r i g ht s pr o te ct s so m ethi ngdi ffer en t

— th e f or m erse cures “ the r i ght t o a par ti cul arl aw yer re gar dle ss ofcom p arati ve effecti venes s, ” a nd the l att er presc ribes “a basel i ne r equi re m ent o fco m petence on w hatev erl aw yeri s cho sen o r appoint ed. ” Gonzal ez- Lop ez , 548 U
. S. at14 8. The r i ghts ar e di ffer ent in another re spect: The Si xth A m endm ent’ s p rotec ti on a gai nst ineffecti ve rep resen tation “d erive[s] from the .

. . A m en d m e n t ’s pu r po s e o fe ns ur i nga f a i r t r i a l, ” id. at 147; “[ t] he r i ght t o10 N o. 08

- 2350 sel ect c ou nselo fo ne’ s cho i ce, by co ntra st,
. . . has been r eg ar ded as the ro o t m ea ni ngo fthe c o ns ti tu ti o na l g ua r an tee , ” id. at14 7- 48
. St at ed di ffer en tl y, the S i xth Am en dm en t ri ght t o counselo fchoi ce “ com m ands [ ] notthata tr i albe f ai r, but that a par tic u lar guar antee o ff ai rnes s be provi ded

— to wi t, th at th e ac cus ed be defen ded by th e counselhe b el i eve s t o be b est
. ” Id. at 146. These t w o el em ents ofthe Si xth A m en dm ent r i ght t o c ou n sel w i l l o ccasi onal l y b e in tens i on with each othe r

— pr o to t y p i c a l l y, wh e n a d e fe n d a n th i r e s a n a t t o r n e y who ha s a con fl ict of interest
. W he n this occu rs, th e d efend an t’s rig h t t o c ou n se l of h is c h oic e m ay h av e t o g i v e w ay . A cour t co nfr onted w i th a case o fj oi nt r epres entat i on “m us t t ak e ade qua te s te ps to a sc er ta i n whe th erthe c o nfl i cts w ar ra nt separ ate co u n sel. ” Whe at, 48 6 U.S
. at16 0. J oi nt r epres entat i on m ay prese nt a conflict so concr ete and seri ous that i t intol er abl y underm i nes the r i ght t o eff ec ti ve a ss i st an ce o fc o uns ela nd j us ti fi es o ve r r i di ng th e d efe n d an t’s ch oic e o f co u n se l. Id. at 161- 62. N ot al l cas es ofj oi nt r epres entat i on, h ow ever, gi ve ri se to a co nfl i ct o fi nter estwarra nti n g disqual i fi cati on o f counsel ; the Supre m e C ourthas hel d that j oi nt r epres entati on i s no t a per se vi olati o n o fthe r i g htt o e ffec ti ve c o uns e l. Id. at15 9- 60. I nstea d, j oi nt r epres entat i on r equi re s car eful j ud i ci alscr uti ny f orthe prese nce and effect of confl i cts; the c ou rt“ha[ s] an ind ependent duty to en su re th at cr im in al d efe n d an t s r e c e ive a tr ial th at is f ai r and does no t co ntra vene the S i xth A m endm ent. ” Id. at 16 1; se e a ls o U nite d State s v. C om bs , 22 2 F
. 3d 353, 36 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) ( “[ A ] co urt has a n i nd ependent d u ty toN o. 08

- 2350 11 bal ance the r i ght t o counselo f choi ce with the bro ader interest s of j ud ici al int egrity. ”). W here , as here, defe nd ants charg ed j oi ntl y a re r epresente d by the sa m e co uns el, R u le 4 4( c) ( 2) o fthe Feder al Rules o fCri m i nal Pro cedure i nstr ucts the co u rtto conduct a p ro m pt i nquir y into the l i kel i hood and effect ofany confl i ct o fi nter est : ( 2) Court ’ s Resp onsi bil i t i es i n Cases o fJ oi nt Repres en tati on . T h e c o u r tmu s tp r o mpt l y i n q u i r e ab o ut th e pr o pr i ety o f j o i ntr epr es en ta ti o n a nd mustpe r so nal l y a dvi se each de fen dan t o fthe r i g htt o the eff ecti ve ass i sta nce o fco uns el, i ncl ud i ng se parat e re prese ntati on. U nl ess ther e i s g oo d c au se to bel i eve th at no confli ct of i nt ere s t i s l ikel y to ari se, th e cou rt m us t take appropr i ate m eas ures to pro tectea ch defen d an t’s righ t t o c ou n se l. I n j oi nt- re prese ntati on ca ses , the distri ct c ourthas “substan tial latitud e” to refuse a d efend an t’s conflict w aiver. Wheat, 48 6 U .S. at 1 63 . Th e c ou rt ’s d ec isio n, th er efo re , i s review ed f or abu se of discretion; w e recogn ize, m oreover, that the decis i on “m ust be m ade ex ante; i fdi squal i fi cati on w as propero n the basi s o fal l inf or m ati on know n or k no wa b l e a tthe ti me the j ud g e a c t e d, the n l a t e r de v e l o pm ents
. . . would n ot spoi l the deci si on. ” Rodr iguez v. C ha nd ler, 382 F.3d 670 , 672 (7th C ir. 2004). A lth ou gh th e d isq u alific a t i o n d ec isio n is “le ft p rim ar i l y t o the info rm ed j ud gm ent o fthe tr i alco urt, ” Whe at, 4 8 6 U
. S
. a t1 6 4 , th e f o r c e o fth e co r e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c o mm a n d r e q u ire s t h at th e c ou rtst ar t fro m a d efa u lt p os i-12 N o. 08

- 2350

The d is tr ic t c ourt i s not re quired to “f o llow s om e pre- or- 1 dai ned , det ai l ed s c ri pt ” o r “c onduc ta l ong- winde d dia l ogue w i th c o u n se l a n d d e fe n d a n t s” b e fo r e a c c e p t i n g a d e fe n d a n t ’s w a iv er o f hi s ri g h t to co n flic t-fr ee co u n se l. U ni t ed Sta t es v. F l ores , 5 F. 3d 1070, 1078 ( 7th Cir

. 199 3 ). Inst ead, f or a defe nd a n t’s w a iver to be vali d, the j ud ge need only “inf orm eac h d e fen d an t of the na tu re an d im p or tan ce of the rig ht to confl i c t
- f r e e c ou ns e l a nd e ns ur e tha tthe de f e nd a ntun derst and s som ethi ng of the conse quences of a c onfl ic t. ” Id. ; accord U n ite d S ta te s v . C a st illo , 96 5 F .2d 23 8 , 24 1 -4 2 (7t h C ir . 19 9 2 ); U n ited S tates v . R oth , 86 0 F .2d 13 8 2 , 13 8 8 -8 9 (7t h C ir . 19 8 8 ). t i o n tha tg i v e s e ff e c tt o the de fe nd a nt ’ s S i xth Am e nd

me n tr i g h tt o c h o o s e h i s o wnc o u n s e l

. T h e S u p r e me Court has there f or e r eco gni zed a presum pti on i n f avo r o fthe de f e nd a nt ’ s c ho i c e o fc ounsel, a nd thi s p r e s umpti o n c anb e o ve r co m e o nl y b y a n a ctua l o r s er i o us p ot e n t i a l f or co n flict

. Id

. “U nd er Whe at, th e r i sko fno nper su asi o n r es ts wi ththe pr o se cut i o n r athe r tha n the defe nd ant. ” R o drig uez , 38 2 F .3d at67 2. T h e c o u r t ’ s role i s t o deter m i ne “whether the a tto rneyhas an actual confl i ct, a potenti alco nfl i ct, o r no con fl i ct a t a l l, ” U nited Sta tes v. P erez , 325 F. 3d 115, 125 ( 2d Cir

. 20 03) , and to ev al ua te a ny co nfl i ctf o r i ts e ffec t o n the de fen dan t’ s r i g ht to effective ass istanc e of cou ns el. I n ad d itio n, before accepti ng a waive r ofco nfl i ct- f re e co unsel, Rule 44 ( c) requ ires the c o ur t to a dvi se e ac h de fen dan t o fhi s r i g ht to effe c tiv e a ss ist an c e o f co u n se l. 1 Thi s f r amewor kr equi r es the co ur t to fi r stde te r m i ne the speci fi c n at u re ofany actualo r potenti alco nfl i ct o f in te re st aris in g fro m th e jo i n t r ep re se n ta tio n . I f th er e isN o. 08

- 2350 13

no co nfl i ct o fi nter est, then th e defe nd ant’ s cho i ce o f co uns elmustb e r es pec te d unl es s th er e i s so m e in st i tu
tio n al c on c er n r e q u irin g d isq u alific at ion
. Se eGonzal ezLo pez , 54 8 U. S
. a t 15 2 ( “T he c o ur t ha s . . . a n ‘ ind ep en den t i nt e r e s ti n e ns ur i ngtha tc r i mi na l t r i a l s a r e c o nd uc t ed w i thi n the ethi cal stand ar ds ofthe profess i on a nd that leg al p ro c ee d in gs ap p ea r f a i r to all w h o ob se rv e t h em .’ ” ( quoti ng Whe at, 48 6 U. S
. at 16 0) )
. I f, o n th e o th erha nd, the c ou rtfind s a n ac tu al c on flict of in te re st th at se riou s ly unde r m i ne s co uns el ’ s effec ti ve ne ss , “ th er e ca n be no d ou bt th at [the cou rt] m ay d ecline a proffer ofw aiver, an d ins ist th at d efe n d an ts be se p ar at ely rep re se n te d .” Whe at, 48 6 U.S
. at1 62. A co nfl i ct that a m ounts to a b re ach o fthe code o fpro fess i onalethi cs obvi ousl y qualifies , s e ei d. , as does a concr ete co nfl i ct o fi nter estwh i ch though no t a vi ol ati on o fp ro fess i onalethi cs, nonethel ess i m pedes the att or ney’ s abi l i ty to provi d e effect i ve ass i stan ce of coun sel w ithin th e m ean ing of St r i ck l and

. The dis quali fi cati on d eci si on be com es m or e di ffi cul t, how eve r, i fthe j oi nt r epres entat i on prese n ts onl y a potenti al f orco nfl i ct. Because “ a pos sibl e co nfl i ct inheres in alm os t e ve ry ins ta n c e o f m u ltip le re p r es en ta tio n,” Cuyl e rv. Su l l i van , 4 4 6 U
. S
. 3 3 5 , 3 4 8 ( 1 9 8 0 ) , t h e S u p r e me Court has s ai d that o nl y a seriou s p ot en tia l co n flict w ill j u st ify o v e rrid in g t h e d efe n d an t’s ch oic e o f co u n se l, Whe at, 4 86 U. S
. a t 16 4. Thi s r equires ani nqui r y i nt o the l i k e l i ho o d tha t the po t e nt i a l c o nfl i c t wi l l matur e i nt o an ac tual conf l i cta nd the de g r ee t o whi chi t th r ea te ns the ri ght t o eff ecti ve ass i sta nce o fco unsel

. A ccor dingl y, bef or e di squal i fyi ng co unsel bas ed on a pote nt i al co nfl i ct, the di str i ct c ourtsho uld e val uate ( 1) the l i kel i hoo d that14 N o. 08

- 2350 th e co nfl i ctwi l l a ctua l l y o cc ur ; ( 2) the severity o fthe th r ea t to c o uns el ’ s effec ti ve ne ss ; a nd ( 3) whethe r there ar e a lte rn at ive m ea su re s a va ilab le ot h er th an d isq u ali fi cati on that would pro tectthe defe nd an t’ s r i ght t o effe c tiv e c ou n se l w h ile re sp ec tin g h is c h oic e o f co u n se l. The fi rst i nquir y i s the m osti m port ant; a confl i ct that w oul d ser i ousl y underm i ne co unsel ’ s e ffecti venes s i s no t a ba si s f ordi squal i fi cat ion ifi t has l i ttl e l i kel i hood o f occur ri ng. F o r e xa m pl e, i n U nited Sta tes v. A lgee, we affi r m ed th e di squa l i fi ca ti o n o fthe de fen dan t’ s ch o se n a tt o r ne y i n a c on sp ira c y c as e b e c au se th e a tt or n ey h ad p re vio u sly r epr es en te d t wo c o co ns pi r at o rs w ho m the g o ve r nm en t i ntended to cal l to te sti fy a s princi pal w itn es ses ag ai nst th e d e f e n d a n t
. 3 0 9 F
. 3 d 1 0 1 1 , 1 0 1 4 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 2 )
. Att he o th e r e n d o f th e s p e c t r u m i s o u r d e c i si o n i n Rodr iguez, w hi ch though not a j oi nt- rep resenta ti on ca se nonethel ess provi des an e xam ple o fa potenti alf orco nfl ict t h at w as n otsu fficie n t t o jus tify d i s q u a lifica tio n of co u n se l. In R o drig uez pro secuto rs to l d the t ri alc ourtthata detect i ve w ho ha d par ti ci pat ed i n th e i nv es ti gation of a c o de f e nd a ntwa s a n “ i nt e g r a l p a r tofthe c a s e ” a nd a potent ial w i tness ag ai nst the defendant Rodri guez. 38 2 F.3d at 671 -72. On e of R od r iguez’s attorn eys, how ever, had re p resente d the dete cti ve i n an unre l ate d rea l

- est ate tr an sa c tio n . Id. The tr i alco urt disqual i fi ed the att or ney, and on hab eas re vie w w e h eld th is d ec isio n w as u n re as on ab le. Id. at 672- 73. The pro secuti on had notexpl ai ned

— e i th e r a tth e t i me th e d i s q u a l i fi c a t i o n d e c i s i o n w a s ma d e o r a ta n y t i me afterw ard

— w hat a dm i ssibl e e vi dence the detect i veN o. 08

- 2350 15

w ou ld h av e o ffer ed , an d t h e p ro se c u tio n n ev er d id ca ll th e d et ec tiv e t o t es tify

. Id. at6 72
. W e co nc l ude d i n R odrigu ez tha t di squa li fi ca ti o n was no t war r an te d b ec au se the p os sib ility th at th e c on flict of in te r e s t w ou ld ev en tu ally oc c u r w as sim p ly to o re m ot e. Id. Rodr iguez al so ex p lains how the avai l abi l i ty ofpro tecti ve m eas ure s o therthan disqual i fi cati on m ay m ake d isqu ali fi cation un reason able. R od riguez h ad tw o attorneys, o ne o fwh om had no pr i or r elat i onshi p w i th the det ecti ve w ho wa s a potenti alwitnes s. W e no ted that the c oco unsel without the confl i ct c oul d have cr oss ex am in ed th e d et ec tiv e if h e h ad t es tifie d a n d th is “ w ou ld have el i m i nated al l r i sks

. ” Id. at 67 3. T h is “ ea sy so lu tio n,” w e s ai d, m ad e i t unre aso nabl e t o depri ve Rodri guez of h i s c o u n se l of ch oic e. Id. W e h a v e a l s o n o t e d in a no the r case that to avoid a c o n fl ict ofi nt erest, the d istri ct cou rt m ay li m it ex am ination of a w itness and m ay “on rare oc c as ion s” ex c lu d e e vid en c e. U ni t e d S t at e s v. M es s i no , 18 1 F .3 d 8 26 , 830 (7t h C ir. 19 99 ); cf
. U ni t e d S t at e s v. D i ozzi, 80 7 F. 2d 10, 13

- 14 (1s t C ir. 19 86) ( sugge sti ng tha t i t i s a pp ro p ria te to ex c lu d e t es tim on y if t h e s a m e e vid en c e is av ailable from other sou rces). The confl ict the di str i ct c ourti denti fi ed i n thi s ca se w as the m er e possi bil itythatei therW om ack orTurner w ould deci de to co oper ate with the go ver nm ent a gai nst the o ther

. Thi s doe s no t a m ount t o an actual co nfl i ct. N or i s i t, i n the ci rcum sta nces of th is case, a ser i ous pot enti al confl i ct j usti fyi ng the dis quali fi cati on o fTurner ’ s co unsel ofchoi ce. Recal l th at t he go ver nm ent b ear s the r i sk of n on p er su as ion h er e. R o drig uez , 3 8 2 F.3d at67 2; see also P erez , 32 5 F
. 3d at 125 (“ W h ere the r i ght t o counselo f16 N o. 08

- 2350 choi ce c onfl i cts w i th the ri ght to an at torney o fundivi ded l oya l ty, the choice as to wh i ch r i ght i s t o tak e pr ecedence m ust g ener al ly be l eft t o the defendant and not dict ate d bythe g o ve r nm en t. ”)
. At the Rul e 44 ( c) he ar i ng , the pros ecutor n ev ersa i d the g ove rnm ent intended to see k ei th erde f en dan t’s c o o per at i o n o r t es ti m o ny a g ains t th e oth er. To th e c o n t r a ry, a l ine assistan t in the p rosecu tor’s offi ce wan te d to tal k t o W om ack about an “unre l ate d m att er, ” nota bo utc o o per at i ngwi ththe g o ve r nm en t aga i nst Turner. I f the go ver nm ent needed or w anted as sis ta n c e from eit h er W om ac k or T u rn er , it c e r ta in ly didn’tactl i ke i t. W om ack had been in custo dy f ora yea r and a half, and he was await i ng se ntenci ng wh en Turner w as ar re ste d. Turner had been in c u stody f orsi x w eek s atthe t i me o fth e R u l e 4 4 ( c ) h e a r i n g . No to n c e d u r i ng that ti m e di d th e gove rnm ent e xpress the s l i ghtes t i nt er es t i n o bt aini ngthe c o o per at i o n o fo ne de fen dan t a g a i ns tthe o the r . Mo r e o v e r, the g o v e r nme nta l r e a dy had the as si sta nce of m ult i ple co oper ati ng co conspi ra tor s. Forthei r part, nei therTurner n or W om ack w anted to hel p the g ove rnm ent. Bari s’ s pro ffero fa confl i ct wa i ver co nfi r med the i r l a c ko fi nt e r e s ti n pr o v i di nga s s i s tance to pros ecuto rs . I n shor t, there is n othi ng i n thi s r eco rd to sugge st that the pot enti alco nfl i ct o fi nter esti denti fi ed by th e di st r i ctc o ur t ha d a s er i o us l i k el i ho od of m atur i ng i nto an actual co nfl i ct. N ori s there a nythi ng to support a concl usi on that the co nfl i ct w as suffi ci entl y s eve re that Tu r ne r ’ s r i g ht t o e ffe c t i v e c o un s e l wo ul d b e j e o pa r di z e d. Th e potenti alf ora confl i ct o fi nter esti n thi s ca se w as hardl y “ cl ear ” a nd “a b so l ute, ” a s the di str i ct j ud ge thought; i nstea d, i t was ent i re l y s pecula ti ve.N o. 08

- 2350 17 At b o tt o m , the j udg e di squa li fi ed Bar i s be ca us e o ne orthe othe r ofhi s cl i ents m ight ch an g e hi s m i nd ab o ut coo perat i ng with the g ove rnm ent, but that possibi l i ty f orco nfl i ct o fi nter est“i nheres i n a l m ostev er y instance ofm ult i ple r epres entat i on .” C uy ler, 4 4 6 U. S
. a t 34 8. The di st r i ctc o ur t es se nt i al l y appl i ed a r ul e th atj o i ntr epr es en ta ti o n necess arilyvi olates the defendant’s r i ght t o eff ecti ve counsel ; thi s dir ectl y c ontradi cts Whe at
. See 486 U .S. at 1 59 -60
. Ou r l ega l sy ste m ge nerally presum es that one att or ney m ay effe c tiv ely rep re se n t m u ltip le c od efe n d an ts . Th is p r e s u mpt i o n i s r e fl e c t e d i n R u l e 4 4 ( c ) a n d S u p r e me Court prece dent. Se e H ol l oway v. Arkans as , 43 5 U.S
. 47 5, 482 ( 1978 ) ( “R eq u iri ng o r perm i tti ng a si ngl e a tto rneyto re prese nt co defe nd ants, o ften refer re d to as j oi nt r epresenta ti on, i s no t per se vi o l at i ve of co ns ti tu ti o na l g ua r an tee s o feff ecti ve assi sta nce ofco unsel

. ”)
. The pre sum pti on i s a l so re fl ecte d i n profess i onalethi calst andard s. Fo r exam ple , the M odel Rules of Profe ss ional Co nduct a s s u me as a g en er almatt ertha t ana tt o r ne y may r epr es en t m u ltip le clien ts n ot w ith st an d in g a c on flict of in te re s t, if th e c l i e n t g ive s in for m ed co n se n t. See M OD EL R ULES OF P R OF ’ L C OND UCT R . 1.7; a cco rd I LL . R ULESOF P R OF ’ L C OND UCT R. 1. 7(b) ( perm i tti ng j oi nt r epres entat i on despit e a co nfl ict ofi nter estpro vi ded ea ch cl i ent g i ves i nfo rm ed conse nt and “the l aw yerr eas onab ly bel i eve s the r epres entat i on wil l notbe advers el y a ffecte d” despit e a c o nfl i c to fi nt e r e s t ) ; S
. D. I LL . L OC . R. 83
. 4( d)( 2) ( ado pting Il li nois R ule s of P rofe ss ional Co nduct )
. The cr i ti cali nquir i es, acco rdi ng to the M odelR ule s, are w hether“the l i kel i hood that a d i ff er ence i n i nter est s w i l l eventuate and , i fi t doe s, w he th er it w il l m ateriall y interfere w ith th e la w y e r’s18 N o. 08

- 2350 ind ep en d en t profession al j ud gm en t in cons idering altern at ive s o r for ec los e c ou rs es of ac tio n th at re a s o n ab ly sh ou ld be p u r s u e d o n be h alf ofth e c lien t.” M OD EL R ULES OF P R OF ’ L C OND UCT R. 1
. 7 cmt. 8
. The M od el R ules ( an d th e Ill i noi s s tandards, wh i ch the So uthern Dist ri ct o f I l l i no i s f o l l o ws) a l so pe r m i t a l awy ert o r epr es en t m ult i ple cl i ents m ak in g an ag gr ega te gui l ty orno- conte st p lea

. See M OD EL R ULESOF P R OF ’ L C OND UCT R . 1.8(g ); see al s o I LL . R ULESOF P R OF ’ L C OND UCT R
. 1. 8(e). I n l i g hto fthe mi ni malr i s ktha tj o i ntr e pr e s e nt a t i on w ou ld h a v e un d erm ined either Tu rner’s or W om ack’s ri ght t o the e ff ect ive ass i sta nce o fco unsel, the dist ri ct cour t had o thero pti ons avai l abl e that would have r esp ec te d T u rn er ’s rig h t t o h is c h os en co u n se l andpro tect ed h i s r i gh t t o e ffec tiv e c ou n se l. W e n ot e t h at alt h ou gh R u le 44( c) ( 2) r equi re s the co urt to “pers onal l y a dvis e e ach d efe n d an t o f th e rig h t t o e ffec tiv e a ss ist an c e o f co u n se l, i ncl ud i ng se parat e r epres entation,” her e, the j ud ge n ev er got th at far. B ar is in vit ed th e c ou rtto qu es tio n h is cl i ent, but the j ud ge enter ed the disqual i fi cati on o rder w ith ou t m ak in g a n y p er so n al in q u iry of T u rn er . Th is i nhibi ted the co urt’ s abi l i ty to full y a sse ss the r i sk th at a confl i ct woul d actual l y ari se and eval uate w hether oth er prote ctive m easu res sho rt of d isq ua li fi cation w ere a v a i l a b l e . Ba r i s a l s o s ug g e s t e d tha tthe c o ur tacc ept T u rn er ’s c on f l i c t w aiv er an d rev isitth e m at te r lat er if ci r c ums t a nc e s we r e t o de v e l o p tha t wo ul d r a i se a c on fl i ct ques ti on. The co urt rej ecte d thi s o pti on a s w ell. F i na l l y, Tur ne r ’ s co urt
- appo i nt ed at to r ne y was pr es en t at th e Rul e 4 4( c) hear i ng. The co urt coul d have a ske d hi m to confer w i th Turner to ass ess the ri sk that a co nfl i ct of in te re st w ou ld aris e a n d en su re th at T u rn er fu llyN o. 08

- 2350 19 und er sto od the parti cul arr am ificat i ons ofj oi nt r eprese nt a t i o n i n the c o nt e xto fthe c a s e . T he s e me a sure s m i ght no t hav e “ el i m i na te d a llr i sks , ” R o drig uez , 38 2 F
. 3d at 673, but the r i sk that the pot enti alco nfl i ct w oul d ri pen i nto an actual co nfl i ct was nev erve rygr eati n the fi rs t pla ce. The dis tr i ct c ourt ’ s deci si on t o disqual i fy Bar i s was base d on the m er e pos sibi l i ty that ei therW om ack or Tu r ne r mi g ht ha v e a c ha ng e o f he a r t a nd deci de to ass ist the gov er nm ent a gai nst the o ther

. Thi s pos sibi l i ty ex i st s i n n ea r l y a l l c as es o fj o i ntr epr esen tatio n. As s uch, th e c ou rtap p lied w h at am ou n ts to a p er se ru le a g a i ns tj o i ntr e pr e s e nt a t i o n, wh i c h i s c o nt r a r y to Wheat

. 486 U
. S. at15 9- 60. The co urt’ s o rderwas ther ef or e pr em i se d o n a mis ta k e re g ar di ngthe a ppl i cabl e l eg als ta nd ar d s, w h ich is ne c es sa rily an ab u se of d i s c re tio n . See C hrist i a n L ega l So c’y v. Wa lk er, 45 3 F
. 3d 853, 86 7 ( 7th Cir
. 20 06) ( ci ti ng Ko o n v . U nited Sta tes , 518 U .S. 81, 10 0 (1996)). A c c or d i n gly , w e h old th at th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d isq u ali fi ca ti o n o r derv i o l at ed Tur ne r ’ s S i xth Am en dm en t r i g ht to ch oose his ow n cou ns el. U nd er G o n z a lez -Lo pez , th is const i tuti onalvi ol ati on i s a st ructur aler ro r not subj ect to re vi ew f orhar m l ess ness. 5 48 U
. S. at14 8- 51. Turner is entitled to a new tri al. W e the refore V ACATE hi s con v i c t i o n a nd s e nt e nc e a nd R EMA ND th e c as e fo r re tr ial.

2- 2- 10