Opinion ID: 484946
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standards For Assessing

Text: 12 The standard for assessing whether an attorney's conflict of interest renders his assistance ineffective is set forth in Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980). In order to demonstrate a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights, a defendant must establish that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance. Id. at 350, 100 S.Ct. at 1719. In examining this question, we consider first whether the district court had a duty under either Fed.R.Crim.P. 44(c) or the Constitution to inquire at the time of trial into Mr. Evseroff's representation of Scaduto and Salvatore Bartolotta. 13 Appellants' argument that the trial court erred in failing to conduct a hearing into Mr. Evseroff's dual representation as required by Rule 44(c) is misplaced. The language of Rule 44(c) itself indicates that a hearing is required only in cases where defendants have been jointly charged or joined for trial. The Advisory Committee Note accompanying the Rule confirms this: Rule 44(c) establishes a procedure for avoiding the occurrence of events which might otherwise give rise to a plausible post-conviction claim that because of joint representation the defendants in a criminal case were deprived of their Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. Fed.R.Crim.P. 44(c) Advisory Committee Note. Moreover, appellants do not point to--nor has research uncovered--any case where a court has applied Rule 44(c) when one attorney represents two defendants--one of whom is a potential witness in the trial of the other--in two different forums. 1 Thus, we conclude that in this instance the trial court had no duty under Rule 44(c) to conduct an inquiry. 14 The Sixth Amendment also imposes a duty upon a trial court to inquire when it knows or reasonably should know that a particular conflict exists. Cuyler, 446 U.S. at 347, 100 S.Ct. at 1717. Appellants argue that there were three separate occasions when Mr. Evseroff indicated that he was representing both Bartolotta and Scaduto. Yet, taken together these instances were insufficient to alert the trial court to a possible conflict of interest. First, attorney Evseroff's remarks made it clear that Bartolotta and Scaduto were facing separate proceedings. See Cuyler, 446 U.S. at 347, 100 S.Ct. at 1718 (The provision of separate trials for [the petitioner] and his codefendants significantly reduced the potential for a divergence in their interests.); Mosier v. Murphy, 790 F.2d 62, 65 (10th Cir.1986) (following Cuyler ). Second, the attorney's comments indicated that Bartolotta's and Scaduto's interests converged, rather than diverged, on the particular issue that Evseroff was raising before the court. Cuyler instructs that the consistency or compatibility of co-defendants' defenses is a factor to be considered in determining whether the trial court had notice of a potential conflict. See Cuyler at 347, 100 S.Ct. at 1717. Finally, appellants did not object at trial to the dual representation. See id. at 347, 100 S.Ct. at 1717. Thus, we conclude that the district court was not obliged by Cuyler to conduct an inquiry at the trial.