IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) CRIMINAL NO. 14-00291-CG-N

)

KIMBERLY SMITH HASTIE,

and RAMONA MCARDLE YEAGER,

)

)

)

)

Defendants. )

)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Kimberly Hastie’s Objection to 

an Order Disqualifying Joe “Buzz” Jordan as one of Defendant’s Defense Counsel

(Doc. 162), and the Government’s Response in Opposition. (Doc. 164). For the 

reasons set forth below, the Objection is due to be denied.

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 59(a), provides a “district judge 

may refer to a magistrate judge for determination any matter that does not dispose 

of a charge or defense.” In this case, the Magistrate Judge issued an order on a nondispositive motion to disqualify counsel. (Docs. 137, 157). The Magistrate Judge 

partially disqualified Mr. Jordan from acting as an advocate at trial after 

determining the Government will likely call him as a witness. (Doc. 157, p. 11). The 

Magistrate Judge did not disqualify Mr. Jordan from acting as Hastie’s pre-trial 

counsel. (Doc. 157, p. 12). The Government moved to disqualify Mr. Jordan, one of 

three attorneys representing Hastie, because they anticipate calling him as a 

witness at trial. (Doc. 137, p. 3). The Government specifically wants Mr. Jordan to 

Case 1:14-cr-00291-CG-N Document 172 Filed 04/17/15 Page 1 of 3
2

testify about a letter he wrote to Hastie in August 2014 regarding payments from 

the Mobile County License Commissioners $1.25 account; payments that the 

Government alleges are criminal. (Doc. 162, p. 2).

Rule 59(a) further provides a party may “serve and file objections to the 

[magistrate judge’s] order within 14 days after being served with a copy of a written 

order or after the oral order is stated on the record.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(a). “The 

district judge must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of 

the order that is contrary to law or clearly erroneous.” Id. 

In her timely objection to the Magistrate Judge’s order, Hastie reiterates that 

she does no oppose the admissibility of Mr. Jordan’s letter. (Doc. 162, p. 2). Because 

the Court deemed the letter admissible, Hastie further argues there “is no witness 

‘necessary’ to introduce the letter.” (Doc. 162, p. 2). Hastie asserts the letter speaks 

for itself, and the Government calling Mr. Jordan as a witness to an uncontested 

matter violates her Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice. (Doc. 162, p. 6).

Hastie, however, does not identify which parts of the Magistrate Judge’s 

order are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Instead, Hastie raises the same 

arguments she raised before the Magistrate Judge regarding whether Mr. Jordan is 

a “necessary witness.” As the Magistrate Judge noted (Doc. 157, p. 3), the Sixth 

Amendment provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy 

the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” U.S. Const. amend. 

VI. “[T]his right was designed to assure fairness in the adversary criminal process.” 

Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 158 (1988). Although a defendant has a right 

Case 1:14-cr-00291-CG-N Document 172 Filed 04/17/15 Page 2 of 3
3

to counsel of his choice under the Sixth Amendment, it is not an absolute right. See,

e.g., United States v. McKeighan, 685 F.3d 956, 966 (10th Cir. 2012); United States 

v. Brumer, 528 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir. 2008). A district court may disqualify an 

attorney if a conflict of interest exists. See United States v. Register, 182 F.3d 820, 

834 (11th Cir. 1999); United States v. Ross, 33 F.3d 1507, 1524 (11th Cir. 1994). 

“Indeed, even a potential conflict suffices for disqualification.” United States v. 

McCutcheon, 86 F.3d 187, 189 (11th Cir. 1996) (citation and quotation omitted).

After reviewing the relevant portions of the record, the Court finds the 

Magistrate Judge’s order is not contrary to law or clearly erroneous. Mr. Jordan will 

likely be called as a Government witness, which means a potential conflict exists 

and he cannot act as an advocate at trial for Hastie. The Court therefore adopts the 

Magistrate Judge’s Order disqualifying Mr. Jordan from acting as trial counsel 

before the jury. Defendant’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order (Doc. 162)

is therefore DENIED. 

DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of April, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cr-00291-CG-N Document 172 Filed 04/17/15 Page 3 of 3