Opinion ID: 48706
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Under the Circumstances, the Court Adequately Inquired

Text: 147 First, the court adequately investigated the potential conflict. It held an ex parte hearing on Fields's motion for substitute counsel. At that hearing, the court listened to Fields's lead attorney speak about the conflict. The attorney described the nature of the prior prosecution, the approximate date on which it took place, and the extent of Peterson's involvement in it. The court also heard Fields's counsel's opinion that the issue was not really a conflict and had not affected the quality of Fields's representation. Afterward, the court gave Fields the opportunity to discuss the alleged conflict, which he declined to do. 148 Fields complains that the court did not affirmatively question the parties involved. Yet, the purpose of the duty to inquire is to assure that the court is apprised adequately of the nature of a conflict and its potential impact on counsel's capacity to represent the defendant. See United States v. Humphrey, 287 F.3d 422, 437 (6th Cir.), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Leachman, 309 F.3d 377 (6th Cir.2002). Here, that purpose was satisfied because discussions the court heard on the record apprised it sufficiently of the relevant facts. See Holleman v. Cotton, 301 F.3d 737, 744 (7th Cir.2002) (noting, while addressing a duty-to-inquire issue, the presumption that attorneys make truthful representations to the court); United States v. Haren, 952 F.2d 190, 195 (8th Cir.1991) (A district court may give substantial weight to defense counsel's representations regarding conflicts of interest.). Those facts showed that the conflict was insubstantial. 149 Where a conflict appears serious and the existing information available to the court is limited, probing and specific questions indeed may be required. See WAYNE R. LAFAVE ET AL., 3 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE § 11.9(b) (3d ed.2000). But that is not the case here. The duty to inquire is not so formalistic as to require affirmative questioning when such is rendered unnecessary because the parties have volunteered all the relevant information for a court to determine that no substantial conflict exists. [T]he trial court did not have a duty to inquire any further. See Dunn, 162 F.3d at 307.