Opinion ID: 1259648
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Rojas-Nunez Matter

Text: Vivian Rojas and Henry Nunez were charged in early 1978 with multiple counts of robbery and one count of murder. Rojas was an alleged prostitute, working in farm labor camps. She would gain entry to the victim's quarters to perform acts of prostitution. When she left, Nunez would enter the same quarters and rob the victim. The murder occurred when one of the victims resisted and was killed when Nunez' gun discharged. Petitioner personally represented both clients through proceedings which culminated in negotiated conditional pleas of guilty. Petitioner conceded in his testimony before the hearing panel that Nunez had a far more serious criminal background than Rojas. Had the case gone to trial, petitioner indicated he would have sought separate representation for the two defendants. He asserted that he had discussed the possibility of a conflict with both Rojas and Nunez on numerous occasions. However, his testimony indicated that many if not most of these discussions were held jointly with both defendants, rather than privately with either one. Both defendants, petitioner testified, insisted on being jointly represented. Petitioner did not obtain written waivers of the conflict from either defendant. Nor did he discuss with them the provisions of the public defender contract. Petitioner testified that he believed that no conflict was present in the case because the conditional plea arrangement was submitted to the court as a package. The court would either accept it or reject it as a whole. Thus, petitioner claimed he would not be required to argue his clients' relative culpability when he appeared on their behalf at the sentencing hearing. The review department found that a conflict of interest existed between Rojas and Nunez and that petitioner had failed to obtain a written waiver of the conflict from either of his clients.