Opinion ID: 1525908
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Appointment of Defense Counsel

Text: During pre-trial proceedings, Judge Michael Rankin, to whom the case was originally assigned, proposed to appoint attorney Thomas Heslep as appellant's counsel. Mr. Heslep and the prosecutor immediately informed the judge that Mr. Heslep had a potential conflict of interest in that Mr. Heslep was also representing one Stanley Henderson. Henderson was then awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty to burglary. During an earlier debriefing with the government, arranged by Mr. Heslep, Henderson had provided information about appellant's whereabouts in the weeks before the appellant's arrest and repeated rumors he had heard on the street about the identity of the robbery's getaway driver and the presence in the getaway vehicle of a young child. The information Henderson provided, according to the government, had been duplicative and unhelpful. After the judge had been informed of the potential conflict, the following colloquy occurred at the bench: THE COURT: But on the other hand [Henderson's] not going to be a witness? [PROSECUTOR]: That's correct, that's right. MR. HESLEP: That's right. I would think that if I made it clear to [appellant] that I could not tell him about certain thing[s] that occurred and he wanted to go ahead then that would be one thing. Then there's also Mr. Henderson, I have to make clear to him that this had arisen after his material was given.... I mean I would intend to speak at his sentencing about  his attempt to cooperate in terms of trying to show the Court that he was attempting to be helpful but that's about the extent of what it would be. THE COURT: It would be a very brief speech. MR. HESLEP: Right. THE COURT: Well, I suggest that you go about that, put this over to Monday or Tuesday to give you a chance because I think that you're well-qualified in a number of ways to represent this man, it's going to take a real good lawyer to represent this man.... So, I suggest you take a couple of days, come back here one day next week and find out where we are. The judge then addressed appellant: I want you and [Mr. Heslep] to have an opportunity to speak to each other, and he has some things that he wants to talk to you about so [I'll] see you on Monday. When the hearing resumed, the prosecutor again expressed her concern about the issue with respect to counsel. In a bench conference, Mr. Heslep told the judge that [he] wasn't particularly worried about [appellant's] half of the equation because as [he] thought it through [he] didn't see any particular disadvantage to [appellant] by what had happened before [appellant] was even arrested. He went on to explain that Henderson was willing to agree to the dual representation as long as appellant was not given his name and the debriefing could still be mentioned at sentencing. The prosecutor continued to express doubt, but her concerns were mainly that Henderson might some day decide that Mr. Heslep didn't fight hard enough to get him that benefit because he now represents the other individual who stood in jeopardy of that cooperation. The judge, however, stated that whether or not the cooperation merited any recommendation for leniency was the Government's call, and that a hearing could be conducted for Henderson's benefit if necessary. The judge then acknowledged, I'm sort of fighting this, because I really do want Tom [Heslep] to do [appellant's] case. The prosecutor then suggested that Henderson and appellant be given the chance to consult with third-party counsel about the waiver rather than to turn around later and say I was advised by the very attorney who had the conflict in the first place ... Shifting the focus back to appellant, the prosecutor stated that she would like to protect this record ... because this a very, very serious offense. The judge responded, See [appellant] is an easy case. It's [Henderson] that apparently is some concern, is a big concern. Again, the prosecutor interjected that she was concerned appellant would come back later with a new lawyer, and again the judge opined, I think this guy, I think he's good. I think we can go forward on his case this morning. And I wouldn't worry ... The judge then called appellant to the bench and told appellant that he concluded that Mr. Heslep's continuing representation of Henderson and appellant would not be a conflict of interest. Although the judge found no conflict, he gave appellant the final say in whether or not to continue being represented by Mr. Heslep. Appellant indicated that he understood the situation and that he wanted to continue being represented by Mr. Heslep. Mr. Heslep proceeded to represent appellant throughout the trial. On the first day of trial, Judge Henry Greene, who presided over the trial and post-trial matters, asked appellant, up until this point in the proceedings to this day and time, are you satisfied with the help and assistance you have received from your lawyers? Appellant answered, From my attorney, yes. Following his convictions, however, appellant, acting pro se, sent Judge Greene a letter listing a series of grievances with the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted, including an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel. Judge Greene forwarded the letter to Mr. Heslep who filed a motion to withdraw. Judge Greene granted the motion and appointed new counsel.