Opinion ID: 2630520
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: disqualification of defense counsel

Text: ¶ 86 The court assistant claims that the trial court erred in removing Arguelles's original appointed counsel with whom Arguelles had apparently established a relationship of trust. He argues that the removal deprived Arguelles of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice [20] and that the death sentence should therefore be reversed. We have already determined that Arguelles's waiver of the right to counsel was not rendered involuntary by the choice to either accept new counsel or proceed pro se, see section II A, supra. We therefore consider here whether (1) the trial court erred in determining that the LDA was disqualified, (2) the trial court properly determined that Arguelles could not waive his right to conflict-free counsel, and (3) whether any error in disqualifying the LDA was prejudicial to defendant. ¶ 87 The accused, although guaranteed the right to counsel by the Sixth Amendment, does not have the absolute right to counsel of his or her own choosing. United States v. Okun, 2001 U.S.App. LEXIS 14193, , 12 Fed. Appx. 83, 85, 2001 WL 699099,  (2d Cir. June 20, 2001). The Sixth Amendment entails a limited right to select and be represented by an attorney of one's choosing; however, the essential aim of the Amendment is to guarantee an effective advocate for each criminal defendant rather than to ensure that a defendant will inexorably be represented by the lawyer whom he prefers. Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 159, 108 S.Ct. 1692, 100 L.Ed.2d 140 (1988) (the sixth amendment provides that criminal defendants who can afford retained counsel have a qualified right to counsel of their choice). Thus, when considering Sixth Amendment claims, the appropriate inquiry focuses on the adversarial process, not on the accused's relationship with his lawyer as such. United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 657 n. 21, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984); see also Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 103 S.Ct. 1610, 75 L.Ed.2d 610 (1983) (holding that there is no Sixth Amendment right to a meaningful attorney-client relationship). ¶ 88 We review the trial court's decision to disqualify the LDA for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Lanoue, 137 F.3d 656, 664 (1st Cir.1998); United States v. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924, 931 (2d Cir. 1993). The trial court must be given substantial deference in making its determination whether to disqualify counsel because [t]he likelihood and dimensions of nascent conflicts of interest are notoriously hard to predict, even for those thoroughly familiar with criminal trials. Wheat, 486 U.S. at 162-63, 108 S.Ct. 1692. [21] In determining whether to disqualify counsel, the trial court must recognize a presumption in favor of defendant's counsel of choice. Id. at 164, 108 S.Ct. 1692. This presumption may be overcome by a demonstration of an actual conflict or by a showing of a serious potential conflict. Id. ¶ 89 If a conflict is found, a defendant has a limited right to waive his or her right to conflict-free counsel. Id. at 161-62, 108 S.Ct. 1692. The trial court, however, must be given substantial latitude to refuse the proffered waiver and to disqualify counsel in opposition to defendant's wishes. Id. at 163, 108 S.Ct. 1692. The right to waive conflict-free counsel is circumscribed because the court has an independent interest in ensuring that criminal trials are conducted within the ethical standards of the profession and that legal proceedings appear fair to all who observe them. [22] Id. at 160, 108 S.Ct. 1692. ¶ 90 In this case, the trial court disqualified the LDA because Johnson, an LDA investigator, was previously employed by the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office and had investigated an earlier case in which Arguelles was convicted of attempted murder and aggravated assault. The trial court noted that the testimony of Johnson was relevant and admissible in this case, that it was adverse to defendant, and that the parties had no other adequate source for this information. ¶ 91 The court assistant claims that the State had no true intent to call Johnson as a witness but merely professed such an intent in an effort to have the LDA disqualified and to deny Arguelles his counsel of choice. The court assistant correctly notes that adverse counsel should not be called as a witness to offer insignificant testimony or as a ruse to disqualify counsel. See, e.g., State v. Worthen, 765 P.2d 839, 849 (Utah 1988). We are not convinced, however, that Johnson's testimony was insignificant or that the motion to disqualify him was merely a pretext. Johnson had specific knowledge of Arguelles's prior offenses. His testimony was relevant to the nature and extent of Arguelles's criminal past, which would be considered an aggravating factor at sentencing. Johnson's identification as a witness for the prosecution thus posed a serious potential conflict. ¶ 92 We are also not convinced that the State had an improper motive in moving to disqualify the LDA. Notwithstanding the court assistant's general claim of impropriety, there is no evidence, nor any reason to presume, that the State's motive was to deny Arguelles his right to counsel. First, the State moved to disqualify the LDA before it was made aware that Arguelles would refuse new counsel if the LDA were disqualified. Second, the State had no real reason to oppose the LDA, since the LDA attorneys had agreed to assist Arguelles in his desire to receive the sentence promoted by the State, i.e., a death sentence. Given the potential value of Johnson's testimony and the absence of evidence that the State acted with improper motive, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in disqualifying the LDA. ¶ 93 The trial court did err, however, in rejecting outright Arguelles's waiver of the right to conflict-free counsel. When Arguelles responded that he was willing to waive any conflict, the trial court stated that Arguelles could not waive the right to effective assistance of counsel. A defendant does, however, have a limited right to waive conflict-free counsel. Wheat, 486 U.S. at 161-62, 108 S.Ct. 1692; see also State v. Johnson, 823 P.2d 484, 490 (Utah Ct.App.1991). Upon finding a serious potential conflict that defendant was willing to waive, the trial court should have weighed the defendant's right to counsel of choice against the seriousness of the potential conflict. Wheat, 486 U.S. at 163-64, 108 S.Ct. 1692; Johnson, 823 P.2d at 488 (citing United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 626 (10th Cir.1990)). On the face of the record, it appears the trial court rejected the waiver without balancing the interests at stake. ¶ 94 Upon finding error, we need not reverse the sentence if we find the error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. [23] State v. Honie, 2002 UT 4, ¶ 54, 57 P.3d 977 (quoting State v. Lafferty, 2001 UT 19, ¶ 35, 20 P.3d 342). An error is harmful if it undermines our confidence in the verdict; if, minus the error, there is a sufficiently high likelihood of a different outcome. Lafferty, 2001 UT 19 at ¶ 35, 20 P.3d 342. The burden of showing such a likelihood rests on the complaining party. Honie, 2002 UT 4 at ¶ 54, 57 P.3d 977. ¶ 95 In this case, even if we presume that the court improperly rejected Arguelles's waiver of conflict-free counsel, we are not convinced that the error prejudiced defendant. First, Arguelles was not denied competent counsel. After the LDA was disqualified, Arguelles was offered counsel, which he voluntarily declined, see section II A, supra. Second, we are not persuaded that a different outcome would have resulted if the LDA were not disqualified. Arguelles was adamant about seeking the death penalty from the start, and, no matter who represented him, it is quite unlikely that he would have allowed any counsel to mount a significant defense to the death sentence or that such a defense would have been successful, given the horrific nature of Arguelles's crimes and the paucity of mitigating circumstances. We therefore hold that the error in failing to consider Arguelles's waiver of conflict-free counsel was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.