Opinion ID: 752168
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statements to Raymond Ham

Text: 33 As found by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the following are the facts concerning the statement to Ham: On September 30, 1983--four days after charges were filed against Mr. Castro--while Mr. Castro was in the Kay County jail awaiting trial on the Pappan murder, he told the jailers that he wanted to talk. Raymond Ham, an investigator with the district attorney's office, went to see Mr. Castro. Mr. Castro told Ham that he wanted to talk and that he wanted his attorney present. After his attorney for the Pappan murder, Kenneth Holmes, arrived, Mr. Castro was notified of his Miranda rights by both Holmes and Ham, and he then confessed to the Cox murder. Mr. Castro had not received a court-appointed lawyer for the Cox murder at the time of the confession. 34 Mr. Castro argues that the statement was improperly admitted for two reasons: because the statement occurred during the long delay between the filing of charges and his arraignment, it is presumptively involuntary; and the attorney present during the statement, Kenneth Holmes, had a conflict of interest because he had previously represented Steven Gregory, the cell mate to whom Mr. Castro had made prior incriminating statements. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals addressed, and rejected, both of these arguments.
35 The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found that [t]he record reflects that at the time of the September 1983 confession, Mr. Holmes was not representing Gregory; Tom Rigdon had been court-appointed to represent Gregory in May 1983. Castro, 844 P.2d at 165. It concluded there was no conflict. Id. The district court also held no conflict existed: [T]he Court finds no evidence in the record suggesting that Castro's attorney, Holmes, was in a position of professional conflict at the time he assisted Castro.... Although Holmes may have represented Gregory on an unrelated matter at some earlier date, there is no indication that Holmes' representation of Castro was prejudiced by any duty owed to Gregory. Memorandum Op. and Order at 40-41, R. Vol. I at Tab 24. We agree. 36 Whether multiple representation in a particular case gave rise to a conflict of interest presents a mixed question of law and fact. Edens v. Hannigan, 87 F.3d 1109, 1113 (10th Cir.1996). Mr. Castro has the burden of showing specific instances to support his claim of actual conflict of interest. Id. at 1114. An actual conflict of interest arises from joint representation if the interests of those jointly represented  'diverge with respect to a material factual or legal issue or to a course of action.'  Id. (quoting Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 356 n. 3, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 1722 n. 3, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980)). While the typical conflict of interest case involves joint representation of codefendants, it is not limited to such cases. Rather, a defendant's right to representation free of conflicts  'extends to any situation in which a defendant's counsel owes conflicting duties to that defendant and some other third person.'  United States v. Cook, 45 F.3d 388, 393 (10th Cir.1995) (quoting United States v. Soto Hernandez, 849 F.2d 1325, 1328 (10th Cir.1988)). 37 We agree with the district court and the Oklahoma courts that the record fails to support the existence of any actual conflict of interest due to Mr. Holmes' prior representation of Gregory on unrelated charges and his representation of Mr. Castro on the Pappan murder charge. Indeed, the evidence surrounding the confession to Ham indicates that Mr. Holmes did everything he could to assist Mr. Castro and make sure that Mr. Castro understood what he was doing. Unsubstantiated and vague allegations are insufficient to establish an actual conflict of interest.
38 Mr. Castro made his statement to investigator Ham four days after the information was filed against him for the Cox murder, but eight months prior to his arraignment on those charges. He appears to argue that the length of time between the filing of the information and his arraignment renders his statement to Ham involuntary. We have already held that Mr. Castro's speedy trial rights were not violated by the length of time before arraignment. Furthermore, inasmuch as the confession occurred at the very beginning of the period which Mr. Castro claims was unconstitutionally long, it is difficult to see how the length of time between the filing of charges and arraignment affected the voluntariness of that confession. Moreover, as the Oklahoma courts found, and we have already indicated, the record surrounding the confession fully supports the conclusion that the statement to Ham was, in fact, voluntary.