Opinion ID: 770834
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Present Proceeding

Text: 20 Leslie commenced the present habeas action in 1998 alleging, to the extent pertinent to this appeal, that Green's imposture deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of trial counsel. After independently reviewing the state-court record, the district court dismissed the petition in an opinion reported at 72 F.Supp.2d 267 (1999) (LeslieIII), noting that Leslie was represented by a bonafide lawyer throughout the entire trial. Id. at 281. The court stated that 21 [h]ad Green been Leslie's sole, or even primary, representative at trial, or had White not been present during selected portions of the trial, a more difficult question would be presented. However, as Judge Rothwax--the presiding judge at trial--observed in LeslieI, and as an independent review of the record makes clear, White was both present throughout the trial and assumed a preeminent role in Leslie's defense. 22 Id. at 280-81. The court distinguished the present case from United States v. Novak, 903 F.2d 883 (2d Cir. 1990), in which a defendant was represented by both a local bona fide attorney and a visiting imposter, but local counsel did not actively represent the defendant at trial. The district court found that, unlike the defendant in Novak, Leslie was vigorously represented by a lawyer throughout all critical stages of his trial. LeslieIII, 72 F.Supp.2d at 281. 23 The district court adopted the state trial court's finding that White was unaware that Green was not an attorney and concluded that White had no conflict of interest. 24 Other than a few conclusory assertions that White could have been aware that Green was not licensed, contrary to the trial judge's finding that White was unaware that Green was an imposter, Leslie has not provided the Court with anything indicating that the conflict rule first articulated in Solina [v. United States, 709 F.2d 160, 168-69 (2d Cir. 1983)] should be applied in this case. Furthermore, Leslie has failed to convince the Court that reversal is required under the general conflict-of-interest standard set forth in Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 349-50 (1980). 25 That White was himself not admitted in New York, and that his pro hac vice admission was secured by virtue of an application by Green, does not change this analysis. As a number of courts have held, the rules set forth in Novak and Solina do not apply where the defect in an attorney's admission is de minimis or where an attorney is licensed in foreign jurisdictions. 26 LeslieIII, 72 F.Supp.2d at 281. 27 The court denied Leslie's habeas petition, which asserted various additional claims, in its entirety. The court granted a certificate of appealability on the limited question of whether the nature of Green's representation violated Leslie's Sixth Amendment rights. Id. at 283. This appeal followed.