Source: https://es.scribd.com/document/320174526/George-Kaplan-v-Roy-Bombard-Superintendent-Green-Haven-Correctional-Facility-Respondent-573-F-2d-708-2d-Cir-1978
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:07:11+00:00

Document:
Richard H. Girgenti, Asst. Dist. Atty., New York City (Robert M.
York City, on the brief), for respondent-appellee.
charged by the Geisha House.
sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment not to exceed seven years.
convictions. People v. Gomberg, 46 A.D.2d 850, 362 N.Y.S.2d 832 (1st Dept.
1974) (mem.); People v. Kaplan, 46 A.D.2d 850, 362 N.Y.S.2d 833 (1st Dept.
denial of effective assistance of counsel.
stated that they "had confidence in our firm (Kassner & Detsky) to handle it."
defendants. Kaplan remained silent throughout.
at 315, 379 N.Y.S.2d at 776.
Nicholas Valentine, who owned one of the competing massage parlors.
accomplices, testified that on two occasions the defendants had threatened him.
massage parlor would be next. It was.
Hodas, the only defendant who testified and the only one who was acquitted.
that the claim is without merit.
that Kaplan was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. We agree.
an appellant has been denied the effective assistance of counsel."
United States v. Wisniewski, 478 F.2d 274, 281 (2 Cir. 1973); United States v.
Lovano, 420 F.2d 769, 773 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1071 (1970).
not per se a denial of the effective assistance of counsel", citing People v.
Gonzalez, 30 N.Y.2d 28, 34, 280 N.E.2d 882, 885, 330 N.Y.S.2d 54, 59, cert.
rule, and we emphatically reject it here.
conflict of interest". United States v. Carrigan, supra, 543 F.2d at 1055.
present problems when one of several defendants takes the stand. Morgan v.
clear that Kaplan's testimony would have added anything new to the defense.
right; it is a decision to assert one constitutional right instead of another."
United States v. Bubar, 567 F.2d 192, 203 n. 18 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S.
United States ex rel. Martinez v. Thomas, 526 F.2d 750, 756 n. 8 (2 Cir. 1975).
pre-trial inquiry he heard defense counsel report his consent. He did not object.
offered the opportunity to obtain separate counsel. At no time during the pretrial inquiry or during the trial did he object to joint representation.
States v. Armone, 363 F.2d 385, 406 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 957 (1966).
more than fulfilled its obligation to make a reasonable inquiry of possible conflict.
316, 379 N.Y.S.2d at 777.
Kaplan arising out of Hodas' separate defense remained substantially the same.
resolving that issue, I do not share the views expressed by the majority opinion.
of the risks involved and their desire to be jointly represented. Abraham v.
States v. Wisniewski, 478 F.2d 274 (2d Cir. 1973); and United States v.
court or intelligently concurred in it.
F.2d 1053, 1056 (2d Cir. 1976); United States v. DeBerry, 487 F.2d 448, 45354 n.6 (2d Cir. 1973), I believe that burden was sustained in the present case.
As required by 28 U.S.C. 2254(b) and (c) (1970), Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S.
F.2d 91, 92-95 (2 Cir. 1978); Cameron v. Fastoff, 543 F.2d 971, 976-78 (2 Cir.
e.g., United States ex rel. Lunz v. Henderson, supra, 533 F.2d at 1324 & n.3.
court clerks, we shall be compelled to resort to sterner measures.
responsibility of all three men.' "
noting what was flushed out on remand, Morgan v. United States, 295 F.Supp.
inability to make a free choice." 295 F.Supp. at 971.
joint representation would prejudice the defendants. 543 F.2d at 1057.
inform the defendant that he was entitled to separate counsel if he so desired.
That is a far cry from the facts of the instant case.
Judge Mansfield involved our limited power of habeas corpus review.
the conflict problem and to waive his right to separate counsel. We disagree.
risks inherent in joint representation and to waive his right to separate counsel.
Heirs of Bihag, Et Al. vs. Heirs of Nicasio Bathan, Et Al.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.