Opinion ID: 2520809
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sixth Amendment Right to an Attorney Free from Conflict

Text: The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that [i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. U.S. Const. amend. VI. This right includes the right to the assistance of an attorney who is free from any conflict of interest in the case. Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261, 271, 101 S.Ct. 1097, 67 L.Ed.2d 220 (1981); State v. Davis, 141 Wash.2d 798, 860, 10 P.3d 977 (2000). Dhaliwal argues that Salazar had a conflict of interest because he also represented some of the witnesses at Dhaliwal's trial in other matters. Dhaliwal asserts that some of these witnesses had interests adverse to his and that Salazar's performance was negatively affected by these conflicts of interest. The State, on the other hand, maintains that Dhaliwal has not shown that his attorney represented actual conflicting interests or that any such conflict adversely affected Salazar's performance. First, the State asserts that Dhaliwal waived his right to a conflict-free attorney. Even if an attorney has a conflict of interest, he or she may continue to represent the defendant if the defendant makes a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver. See Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 483 n. 5, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978). Because both Dhaliwal and the trial court were aware of Salazar's representation of various witnesses, the State claims that the discussion between Salazar, the court, and Dhaliwal about the potential conflict constituted a waiver of Dhaliwal's right to choose an attorney free from conflict. In Garcia v. Bunnell, 33 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1994), the defendant's attorney advised him several hours before the trial began that he had accepted a position with the prosecution to begin after the trial was over. The Ninth Circuit held that the defendant had effectively waived his right to a conflict-free attorney because his comments on the record indicated his understanding of the situation. [6] Id. at 1195-96. Furthermore, the trial court granted a five-day continuance so that the defendant could think about and discuss with other people whether he wanted to continue with his current attorney despite the conflict. Id. at 1196. By nonetheless electing to continue with his attorney, Garcia knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived any rights even potentially implicated by his attorney's employment decision. Id. at 1197. Here, the Court of Appeals determined that although the trial court and Dhaliwal were aware of the potential conflict of interest, Dhaliwal's responses did not constitute a waiver because the nature and extent of the conflict was not fully explored by the trial court. Dhaliwal, 113 Wash.App. at 232, 53 P.3d 65. Nor did the trial court inform Dhaliwal of the consequences of his choice of attorney. Id. at 234, 53 P.3d 65. In contrast to the defendant in Garcia, Dhaliwal's answers to the court's inquiry into his understanding of the situation were limited to simple affirmatives. See supra, note 5. We agree that the trial court's inquiry was inadequate in these circumstances and hold that Dhaliwal did not waive his right to a conflict-free attorney. In the Court of Appeals, Dhaliwal argued that the trial court's failure to inquire adequately into Salazar's potential conflict of interest required reversal. However, because of the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Mickens, the Court of Appeals held that Dhaliwal was not automatically entitled to reversal based on the court's failure to inquire fully into the possible conflict. Dhaliwal, 113 Wash.App. at 237, 53 P.3d 65. Dhaliwal maintains that even after Mickens he is still entitled to a new trial because Salazar was operating under an actual conflict that adversely affected his performance. In In re Personal Restraint of Richardson, 100 Wash.2d 669, 675 P.2d 209 (1983), this court reviewed a factually similar case in which the trial court failed to inquire about a conflict of interest despite being aware that the defendant's lawyer had previously represented one of the witnesses in the case. There, this court held that if a trial court knows or should know of a conflict of interest but fails to inquire, it has committed reversible error. Id. at 677, 675 P.2d 209. Reversal is also mandated if the defendant shows an actual conflict of interest adversely affecting his lawyer's performance. Id. In neither case is the defendant required to demonstrate prejudice. Id. The holding in Richardson was based on three United States Supreme Court cases: Holloway, 435 U.S. 475, 98 S.Ct. 1173, Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980), and Wood, 450 U.S. 261, 101 S.Ct. 1097. In Holloway, one attorney was appointed to represent three codefendants on rape and robbery charges. 435 U.S. at 477, 98 S.Ct. 1173. The attorney objected several times during the proceedings, stating that he could not adequately represent all of the defendants because he had received confidential information from each of them and consequently was operating under a conflict of interest. Id. at 477-79, 98 S.Ct. 1173. However, the trial court refused to appoint separate counsel. Id. The Supreme Court held that the defendants' rights to assistance of counsel were violated when the trial court failed to appoint separate counsel or investigate the possible conflict of interest once it had been brought to the court's attention. Id. at 484, 98 S.Ct. 1173. In Sullivan, two attorneys represented three defendants at their separate trials for two murders. 446 U.S. at 337-38, 100 S.Ct. 1708. The attorneys did not object to the multiple representation at trial, nor did Sullivan. Id. The Sullivan Court held that the trial court was under no duty to inquire about a possible conflict of interest simply due to the fact of the multiple representation, stating: Unless the trial court knows or reasonably should know that a particular conflict exists, the court need not initiate an inquiry. Id. at 347, 100 S.Ct. 1708. Because the defendant had not objected to the representation at trial, he had to demonstrate that there was an actual conflict that adversely affected his attorney's performance. Id. at 348, 100 S.Ct. 1708. In Wood, the defendants, who were employees of an adult theatre and bookstore, were charged with distributing obscene material. 450 U.S. at 263, 101 S.Ct. 1097. Their employer retained a lawyer for them and promised to pay any fines imposed. Id. at 266, 101 S.Ct. 1097. Although it was not possible to ascertain whether the attorney's performance was influenced by the interests of the employer, the Court nevertheless held that the possibility of a conflict of interest was sufficiently apparent at the time of the revocation hearing to impose upon the court a duty to inquire further. Id. at 272, 101 S.Ct. 1097. Citing Sullivan, the Court found reversal to be mandatory when the trial court has failed to inquire about a conflict despite the fact that it knew or reasonably should have known about the existence of a conflict. Id. at 273 n. 18, 101 S.Ct. 1097. The Court of Appeals below found that the most recent United States Supreme Court opinion on this issue, Mickens v. Taylor , changed the rule adopted by this court in Richardson. Dhaliwal, 113 Wash.App. at 235-36, 53 P.3d 65. In Mickens, the Supreme Court held that automatic reversal is not constitutionally required when a trial court fails to inquire about a potential conflict of which it was or should have been aware. 535 U.S. at 172, 122 S.Ct. 1237. Rather, to show a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel free from conflict, the defendant must always demonstrate that his or her attorney had a conflict of interest that adversely affected his or her performance. Id. at 174, 122 S.Ct. 1237. `[A]n actual conflict of interest' [means] precisely a conflict that affected counsel's performance as opposed to a mere theoretical division of loyalties. [7] Id. at 171, 122 S.Ct. 1237. The Court of Appeals below refused to reverse the trial court's decision because Dhaliwal had not shown an actual conflict or an adverse effect on his attorney's performance. Dhaliwal, 113 Wash.App. at 234, 53 P.3d 65. Applying Mickens, the court eliminated the first portion of the Richardson rule, which required reversal if the trial court simply knew or should have known of a possible conflict yet failed to inquire. The court then reformulated the test for determining whether the defendant's Sixth Amendment right was violated due to a conflict of interest. Id. at 237-38, 53 P.3d 65. First, the defendant must show an actual conflict by citing portions of the record that demonstrate the attorney was caught in a `struggle to serve two masters.' Id. (quoting Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 75, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942)). Second, the defendant must show that the conflict of interest adversely affected the attorney's performance in some way. Id. at 238, 53 P.3d 65. Thus, [t]he conflict `must cause some lapse in representation contrary to the defendant's interests,' or have likely affected counsel's conduct of particular aspects of the trial or counsel's advocacy on behalf of the defendant. Id. (footnote omitted) (quoting Sullivan v. Cuyler, 723 F.2d 1077, 1086 (3d Cir.1983)). We agree that under Mickens reversal is not mandated when a trial court knows of a potential conflict but fails to inquire. However, we disagree with the Court of Appeals' reformulation of the Mickens actual conflict rule. In Mickens, the Court stated: [T]he Sullivan standard is not properly read as requiring inquiry into actual conflict as something separate and apart from adverse effect. An `actual conflict,' for Sixth Amendment purposes, is a conflict of interest that adversely affects counsel's performance. 535 U.S. at 172 n. 5, 122 S.Ct. 1237. The Court of Appeals, however, formulated a two-prong test consisting of actual conflict and adverse effect. Consistent with Mickens, we hold that a defendant asserting a conflict of interest on the part of his or her counsel need only show that a conflict adversely affected the attorney's performance to show a violation of his or her Sixth Amendment right. Dhaliwal argues that Salazar's performance was negatively affected because he was unable to effectively challenge Grewal's testimony about the previous assault case due to his representation of Grewal in that matter. It is Dhaliwal's contention that testimony about the assault was of critical importance in the murder case against Dhaliwal because the State used it to show that Dhaliwal had threatened witnesses and contrived testimony in the past. Dhaliwal's trial attorneys questioned Grewal extensively at trial, subjecting him to cross-examination spanning more than 70 pages in the record. His cross-examination included questions about the prior assault case. When questioned by Salazar's cocounsel, Mr. Cobos, Grewal stated: Your office represented me, Harbhajan Singh and Paramjit Dhaliwal, you know better than I can describe. 02/05/01 Report of Proceedings (RP) at 89-90. Yet Cobos continued to question Grewal about this incident, thus indicating no reluctance on his part to interrogate his cocounsel's former client about the prior case. [8] It was only after the State's objection that Cobos' questioning of Grewal on this issue was brought to an end. Although not discussed by the Court of Appeals, several of the other witnesses at trial, Gurcharan Saidpur, Resham Singh, and Surinder Sohal, were concurrently represented by Salazar in a shareholder action against Farwest. Saidpur and Singh testified for the defense, while Sohal testified for the State. The record indicates that this shareholder action was brought by several cab drivers who were terminated by Farwest, possibly as a result of the internal conflict between the two factions. As the State noted when Salazar's possible conflict was brought to the attention of the trial court, the shareholder action may be related to Dhaliwal's murder trial in that the terminations may have been in retaliation for Dhaliwal's shooting of Bassi. Dhaliwal argues that Salazar's performance was affected by his dual representation of Dhaliwal and Sohal because Salazar failed to object to various hearsay statements and testimony about Dhaliwal's prior bad acts during Sohal's testimony. Standing alone, the failure to object to testimony does not indicate that Salazar was operating under a conflict, as there are numerous tactical reasons for not objecting to testimony. In ineffective assistance of counsel cases, this court has been reluctant to find counsel's performance deficient solely on the basis of questionable trial tactics. Richardson, 100 Wash.2d at 675, 675 P.2d 209. [9] In Sullivan, the United States Supreme Court found that the trial attorney's tactical decision to rest Sullivan's defense was a reasonable response to the weakness of the prosecutor's case rather than evidence of a conflict of interest. 446 U.S. at 347-48, 100 S.Ct. 1708. Similarly, Salazar's failure to object to testimony is a tactical decision that, without more, does not indicate that he was acting under a conflict of interest. This is not a case where the defendant's attorney utterly failed to make any objections, to cross examine the State's witnesses, or to mount a defense. [10] Under Mickens and Sullivan, the defendant bears the burden of proving that there was an actual conflict that adversely affected his or her lawyer's performance. Mickens, 535 U.S. at 174, 122 S.Ct. 1237; Sullivan, 446 U.S. at 350, 100 S.Ct. 1708. Holding that the possibility of a conflict was not enough to warrant reversal of a conviction, the Sullivan Court stated: [U]ntil a defendant shows that his counsel actively represented conflicting interests, he has not established the constitutional predicate for his claim of ineffective assistance. Id. at 350, 100 S.Ct. 1708. Here, Dhaliwal has demonstrated the possibility that his attorney was representing conflicting interests. However, he has failed to establish an actual conflict because he has not shown how Salazar's concurrent representation of the witnesses involved in the shareholder action and his prior representation of Grewal affected Salazar's performance at trial. As an alternative to reversal for a new trial, Dhaliwal urges that this case should be remanded for further inquiry into the nature and effects of Salazar's various conflicts. The Court of Appeals was unpersuaded by this argument because it found that Dhaliwal had shown neither a conflict of interest nor adverse consequences. Dhaliwal, 113 Wash. App. at 240, 53 P.3d 65. We likewise find insufficient evidence of an actual conflict to justify remand. In Wood, the Supreme Court remanded so that the trial court could determine whether a conflict of interest, strongly suggested by the record, was an actual conflict at the time of trial. 450 U.S. at 273-74, 101 S.Ct. 1097. The defendants, who were charged with distributing obscene materials, were employees of an adult theater and bookstore. Id. at 263, 101 S.Ct. 1097. Their employer paid for their attorney and originally agreed to pay their fines as well. Id. at 266, 101 S.Ct. 1097. The defendants received $5,000 and $10,000 fines and jail sentences of 12 months, but were given immediate probation. Id. at 263-64, 101 S.Ct. 1097. Later, their probations were revoked when their employer failed to provide the money to pay their fines. Id. at 267, 101 S.Ct. 1097. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether it was constitutional for probationers to be imprisoned solely due to their inability to pay their fines. Id. at 264, 101 S.Ct. 1097. Rather than addressing this issue, the Court instead found that there was evidence that the employer was using its employees' situation as a test case. If the defendants could not be jailed for failure to pay, then the employer need not pay the fines imposed on its employees for distributing obscene materials. Id. at 267, 101 S.Ct. 1097. Because of the competing interests of the employees and their employer and because the employees' lawyer was retained on their behalf by the employer, there [was] a clear possibility of conflict of interest.... Id. There was also compelling evidence that the attorney's performance was affected, as he did not object to the size of the fines imposed or attempt to modify the amount of the fines once the defendants' probations were in danger of being revoked. Id. at 267-68, 101 S.Ct. 1097. Here, in contrast, Dhaliwal has failed to demonstrate the strong possibility that a conflict of interest had an effect on Salazar's performance. Further, unlike in Wood, Dhaliwal has already put forth his arguments for the alleged negative effects on Salazar's performance. As the issue was not briefed in Wood, it made sense for the Court to remand for further findings. There is no basis for remand here. Dhaliwal has had ample opportunity to prove that Salazar was operating under an actual conflict, but has failed to do so.