Opinion ID: 2823838
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Right to the Assistance of Conflict-Free Counsel

Text: Â¶14Â Â Â Â Â Â Â âIn all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defen[s]e.â U.S. Const. amend. VI; see also Colo. Const. art. II, Â§ 16 (âIn criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to appear and defend in person and by counsel.â). From this bedrock right, the Supreme Court has generated equally familiar corollaries, such as the right in some cases to appointed counsel and the right in all cases to the effective assistance of counsel. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 685â86. Â¶15Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The overarching objective, of course, is to secure a criminal defendantâs right to a fair trial. âThe right to counsel plays a crucial role in the adversarial system embodied in the Sixth Amendment, since access to counselâs skill and knowledge is necessary to accord defendants the ample opportunity to meet the case of the prosecution.â Id. at 685 (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, â[o]f all the rights that an accused person has, the right to be represented by counsel is by far the most pervasive for it affects his ability to assert any other rights he may have.â United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 654 (1984). Because of the crucial role of impartial and zealous counsel in securing due process, the right to effective assistance of counsel includes the right to conflict-free counsel. See, e.g., Mickens, 535 U.S. at 166; Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261, 271 (1981); People v. Martinez, 869 P.2d 519, 524 (Colo. 1994). âThat a person who happens to be a lawyer is present at trial alongside the accused . . . is not enough to satisfy the constitutional command.â Strickland, 466 U.S. at 685. Â¶16Â Â Â Â Â Â Â A conflict often exists when one attorney simultaneously represents two or more codefendants, Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 490 (1978), and may arise when one attorney simultaneously represents a defendant and a witness in that defendantâs trial. See Allen v. Dist. Court, 184 Colo. 202, 205, 519 P.2d 351, 353 (1974) (âIt is of the utmost importance that an attorneyâs loyalty to his client not be diminished, fettered, or threatened in any manner by his loyalty to another client.â). 4 Â¶17Â Â Â Â Â Â Â A similar conflict may arise when an attorney has previously represented a trial witness. This âsuccessive representationâ may restrict the attorneyâs present representation of the defendant âbecause of the [attorneyâs] duty to maintain the confidentiality of informationâ that he received in his prior representation of the trial witness. Rodriguez v. Dist. Court, 719 P.2d 699, 704 (Colo. 1986). Because this duty of confidentiality survives the termination of an attorney-client relationship, it âcreates the possibility that the attorney will be hindered in cross-examining the witness, which thus impedes the attorneyâs ability to zealously represent the current client.â Dunlap, 173 P.3d at 1070 (citing Rodriguez, 719 P.2d at 704). 5