Opinion ID: 1700705
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Refusal of the trial court to permit defense counsel to withdraw because of conflicting interest.

Text: Appellant was arrested on March 4, 1976, and attorney Lewis Myers, Jr. was retained by him March 8, 1976. On the same date, Myers was retained by Keith Givhan, an accomplice. Appellant and Givhan were indicted for capital murder in separate indictments on July 7, 1976. Appellant entered a plea of not guilty August 2, 1976, pretrial motions were filed August 31, and September 1, 1976 by Myers and his associate, attorney Leonard McClellan. On November 8, 1976, the day before the case was set for trial, with a special venire of one hundred (100) persons having been summoned, Myers filed a motion to withdraw as counsel claiming a conflict of interest between Irving and Givhan. The trial judge held a hearing on the motion outside the presence of the jury on November 9, 1976, to determine the merits of same. The substance of the motion and a statement made by Attorney Myers was that each defendant gave inculpatory statements about the other, that Irving and Givhan had been talking with several ministers, which resulted in their conversions, that they had been born again, and It became difficult for me as counsel in attempting to construct a defense, in attempting to give advice to my client because of certain notions, because of certain ideas that he had, allegedly based on this conversion. Appellant relies upon Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942) and Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 55 L.Ed.2d 426, decided by the United States Supreme Court April 3, 1978. In Glasser, the Government tried five codefendants jointly for conspiracy to defraud the United States. Two of the defendants, Glasser and Kretske, were represented initially by separate counsel. On the second day of trial, Kretske became dissatisfied with his attorney and dismissed him. The district judge asked Glasser's attorney, Stewart, if he would also represent Kretske. Stewart responded by noting a possible conflict of interest, his representation of both Glasser and Kretske might lead the jury to link the two men together. Glasser made known to the court that he objected to the proposal. Nevertheless, the court appointed Stewart to represent Kretske, although he continued as Glasser's retained counsel. The record disclosed that Stewart failed to cross-examine a government witness whose testimony linked Glasser with the conspiracy and failed to object to the admission of arguably inadmissible evidence. Such failure was viewed by the court as a result of Stewart's desire to protect Kretske's interest and was indicative of Stewart's struggle to serve two masters. The court said: The right to have the assistance of counsel is too fundamental and absolute to allow courts to indulge in nice calculations as to the amount of prejudice arising from its denial. Cf. Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 116, 54 S.Ct. 330, 336, 78 L.Ed. 674; Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 535, 47 S.Ct. 437, 445, 71 L.Ed. 749; Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276, 50 S.Ct. 253, 74 L.Ed. 854. And see McCandless v. United States, 298 U.S. 342, 347, 56 S.Ct. 764, 766, 80 L.Ed. 1205. Of equal importance with the duty of the court to see that an accused has the assistance of counsel is its duty to refrain from embarrassing counsel in the defense of an accused by insisting, or indeed, even suggesting, that counsel undertake to concurrently represent interests which might diverge from those of his first client, when the possibility of that divergence is brought home to the court. In conspiracy cases, where the liberal rules of evidence and the wide latitude accorded the prosecution may, and sometimes do, operate unfairly against an individual defendant, it is especially important that he be given the benefit of the undivided assistance of his counsel without the court's becoming a party to encumbering that assistance. Here the court was advised of the possibility that conflicting interest might arise which would diminish Stewart's usefulness to Glasser. Nevertheless Stewart was appointed as Kretske's counsel. Our examination of the record leads to the conclusion that Stewart's representation of Glasser was not as effective as it might have been if the appointment had not been made. We hold that the court thereby denied Glasser his right to have the effective assistance of counsel, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. This error requires that the verdict be set aside and a new trial ordered as to Glasser. 315 U.S. at 76, 62 S.Ct. at 467, 86 L.Ed. at 702. In Holloway, three individuals were indicted jointly on July 29, 1975, on counts of robbery and rape occurring June 1, 1975, in Little Rock, Arkansas. On August 5, the trial court appointed Harold Hall, a public defender to represent all three defendants. They were arraigned and entered pleas of not guilty. Two days later, their cases were set for a consolidated trial to commence September 4. On August 13, Hall moved the court to appoint separate counsel for each petitioner because the defendants had stated to him that there was a possibility of a conflict of interest in each of their cases. After conducting a hearing on this motion and on motions for severance, the Court declined to appoint separate counsel. On September 4, before the jury was impaneled, Hall renewed the motion for appointment of separate counsel on the ground that one or two of the defendants may testify and, if they did, then he would not be able to cross-examine them because he had received confidential information from them. The motion was denied again. On the second day of trial, after the prosecution had rested its case, attorney Hall advised the court that, against his recommendation, all three defendants had decided to testify. He then stated to the court that the conflict which he had brought to the court's attention before trial was beginning to materialize. Two of the defendants testified without guidance of counsel and without examination by counsel. In reversing the convictions, the United States Supreme Court stated: Here trial counsel, by the pretrial motions of August 13 and September 4 and by his accompanying representations, made as an officer of the court, focused explicitly on the probable risk of a conflict of interests. The judge then failed either to appoint separate counsel or to take adequate steps to ascertain whether the risk was too remote to warrant separate counsel. We hold that the failure, in the face of the representations made by counsel weeks before trial and again before the jury was empaneled, deprived petitioners of the guarantee of `assistance of counsel.'       The State argues, however, that to credit Hall's representations to the trial court would be tantamount to transferring to defense counsel the authority of the trial judge to rule on the existence or risk of a conflict and to appoint separate counsel. In the State's view, the ultimate decision on those matters must remain with the trial judge; otherwise unscrupulous defense attorneys might abuse their `authority,' presumably for purposes of delay or obstruction of the orderly conduct of the trial. The State has an obvious interest in avoiding such abuses. But our holding does not undermine that interest. When an untimely motion for separate counsel is made for dilatory purposes, our holding does not impair the trial court's ability to deal with counsel who resort to such tactics. Cf. United States v. Dardi, 330 F.2d 316 (CA 2), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 845, 85 S.Ct. 50, 13 L.Ed.2d 50 (1964); People v. Kroeger, 61 Cal.2d 236, 37 Cal. Rptr. 593, 390 P.2d 369 (1964). Nor does our holding preclude a trial court from exploring the adequacy of the basis of defense counsel's representations regarding a conflict of interests without improperly requiring disclosure of the confidential communications of the client. See State v. Davis, supra [110 Ariz. 29, 514 P.2d 1025]. In this case the trial court simply failed to take adequate steps in response to the repeated motions, objections and representations made to it, and no prospect of dilatory practices was present to justify that failure. 435 U.S. at 486-487, 98 S.Ct. at 1178-1180. In Lugo v. United States, 350 F.2d 858 (9th Cir.1965), the Court stated: It is true that where one attorney represents two codefendants, a conflict of interest which denies one or both of the defendants the effective assistance of counsel is a distinct possibility. When such a conflict exists, the conviction cannot stand. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). On the other hand, absent a conflict of interest which interferes with the proper presentation of the defense of one of the codefendants, the mere fact that both are represented by the same attorney is not grounds for reversal. Gonzales v. United States, 314 F.2d 750 (9th Cir. 1963). There has been no showing of any conflict of interest between Lugo and Santiago in this case, nor have we found any in our review of the record. Also, nothing indicates that Rock failed to give Lugo's defense the attention it required. All the cases cited to us by appellant involved obvious conflicts of interest, and while we cannot indulge in nice calculations about the amount of prejudice which results from a conflict of interest [ Glasser, supra], neither can we create a conflict of interest out of mere conjecture as to what might have been shown. Regarding the allegation that a continuance should have been granted the day before trial, it suffices to point out that appellant was represented in fact by Attorney Rock in all preliminary matters as well as at trial, so Rock was undoubtedly familiar with appellant's case, that appellant entered the same defense used by his codefendant, and that there was no objection to the dual representation and no request for a continuance at any time. 350 F.2d at 859-860. See also Gonzales v. United States, 314 F.2d 750 (9th Cir.1963). At the hearing on the motion in the present case, while appellant's attorney desired to be relieved of defending Irving, he expressed a willingness to proceed with the defense of Givhan, whose case was set for trial the following week. Neither appellant nor Givhan testified. Counsel relied wholly upon the weakness of the State's case and upon evidence other than their testimony. The record does not indicate that Attorney Myers would have defended any differently or would have approached the defense of the case on another basis had he not been representing Givhan. The record does not reflect any prejudice or harm resulting to appellant on account of the alleged conflict of interest. After a thorough hearing on the motion, the trial judge found that there was no conflict of interest and we cannot disagree with that conclusion. The fact that appellant made it difficult for his attorney to construct a defense and to advise with him because of notions acquired, based on his being converted, does not bring this case within the Glasser rule.