Opinion ID: 610597
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Herman Mouton, Jr.

Text: 40 We review a claim of insufficient evidence to determine whether a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Anderson, 987 F.2d 251, 255 (5th Cir.1993). 41 To prove a conspiracy, the government must show, inter alia, that an agreement existed between two persons. Mouton claims that the government failed to prove that an agreement existed, because the only person he agreed with was Linda Howard, who cannot be considered a co-conspirator because she was a government informant. United States v. Martino, 648 F.2d 367, 405 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 943, 102 S.Ct. 2006, 2007, 72 L.Ed.2d 465 (1982). 42 Having reviewed the record, we find that ample evidence exists of Mouton's agreement with members of the conspiracy other than Howard. 5 A rational jury could easily have determined, that beyond a reasonable doubt, Mouton was a member of the conspiracy.
43 We review the district court's acceptance of Mouton's waiver of conflict-free counsel for simple error. See United States v. Snyder, 707 F.2d 139, 144 (5th Cir.1983) (holding that the standard of review for challenged attorney disqualification orders in criminal cases is simple error). 44 Under the Sixth Amendment, if a defendant has a constitutional right to counsel, he also has a corresponding right to representation that is free from any conflict of interest. Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261, 271, 101 S.Ct. 1097, 1103, 67 L.Ed.2d 220 (1981). A conflict exists when defense counsel places himself in a position conducive to divided loyalties. United States v. Carpenter, 769 F.2d 258, 263 (5th Cir.1985) (citing Mitchell v. Maggio, 679 F.2d 77, 79 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 912, 103 S.Ct. 222, 74 L.Ed.2d 176 (1982)). 45 Mouton's attorney, Edward Stephens, jointly represented Mouton and Stewart, an alleged co-conspirator not party to this appeal. Furthermore, Stephens may have been identified in one of the tape-recorded conversations as also being involved in the conspiracy. 6 Assuming that the taped reference to Eddie is Stephens, Stephens may have been reluctant at trial to ask questions of witnesses that could implicate either his client Stewart or himself, a valid conflict of interest existed. The finding of an actual conflict of interest triggers the need for a hearing pursuant to United States v. Garcia, 517 F.2d 272 (5th Cir.1975). Garcia directs the district court, when a conflict of interest exists between the defendant and his attorney, to: 46 Address each defendant personally and forthrightly advise him of the potential dangers of representation by counsel with a conflict of interest. The defendant must be at liberty to question the district court as to the nature and consequences of his legal representation. Most significantly, the court should seek to elicit a narrative response from each defendant that he has been advised of his right to effective representation, that he understands the details of his attorney's possible conflict of interest and the potential perils of such a conflict, that he has discussed the matter with his attorney or if he wishes with outside counsel, and that he voluntarily waives his Sixth Amendment protections. Cf. United States v. Foster, 469 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.1972). It is, of course, vital that the waiver be established by clear, unequivocal, and unambiguous language. National Equipment Rental v. Szukhert, [sic] 375 U.S. 311 , 84 S.Ct. 411 , 11 L.Ed.2d 354, 367-8 (1964). Mere assent in response to a series of questions from the bench may in some circumstances constitute an adequate waiver, but the court should nonetheless endeavor to have each defendant personally articulate in detail his intent to forego this significant constitutional protection.... We hold only that if, as a matter of fact, a defendant after thorough consultation with the trial judge knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily wishes to waive this protection, the Constitution does not prevent him from so doing. 47 Garcia, 517 F.2d at 278. 48 The court fully complied with Garcia and held a thorough hearing advising Mouton, himself an attorney, of his right to waive the conflict, and of the dangers involved in making such a waiver. 7 Mouton, as an attorney with twenty years experience, fully understood the district court's concerns over his attorney's conflicts, and indicated more than once that he desired to waive his right to conflict free counsel. 49 Mouton now argues that his waiver was not made knowingly because the district court would not guarantee him that if he chose new counsel, that counsel would be given adequate time to prepare for the trial which was scheduled in two weeks. We are not persuaded. The court clearly stated to Mouton that his concern over whether a new attorney would have adequate time to prepare for trial should not factor into his waiver decision at all, and that if he decided to retain a new attorney, then the district court would determine whether his new attorney required additional time to prepare for trial. Furthermore, the court noted that Mouton had been aware for sixty days of the potential conflict of interest with his attorney. The court explicitly told Mouton more than once that if he desired a new attorney the court would question that attorney to determine whether he could prepare for trial in two weeks. Mouton had no right to a guaranteed continuance of his trial before deciding whether to retain new counsel. 50 Our determination that Mouton knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally waived his right to conflict free counsel does not, however, end our inquiry. An accused's right to waive conflict-free representation is not absolute. If the conflict is so severe as to render a trial inherently unfair, then the integrity of the judicial system has been undermined, and the accused has been deprived of his right to effective assistance of counsel. United States v. Snyder, 707 F.2d 139, 145 (5th Cir.1983) (citing Uptain v. United States, 692 F.2d 8, 10 (5th Cir.1982)). We determine whether the integrity of the judicial system has been undermined by reference to the current national standards of legal ethics. See In Re Dresser Industries, Inc., 972 F.2d 540, 544 (5th Cir.1992). The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct provide that an attorney may not represent a client whose interests are adverse to those of another client or the attorney himself unless the attorney reasonably believes that the new client's representation will not be affected, and the client consents after having the conflicts explained to him. 8 The Disciplinary Rules of the ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility set forth similar standards. 9 51 The conflicts between Mouton and his attorney Stephens were based on Stephens's representation of a co-conspirator not party to this appeal, and on one witness's reference to a law partner named Eddie, purportedly Stephens. In light of current standards of legal ethics, these conflicts do not undermine the integrity of the judicial process in this case. Stephens demonstrated during the Garcia hearing that he believed his representation of Mouton would not be affected by the cited conflicts. 10 He unequivocally advocated that he be allowed to continue representation of Mr. Mouton. 52 Regarding Mouton's consent, Mouton is an attorney who practiced law for twenty years, and even assisted Stephens in the preparation of this case. As such, he fully understood, more than a lay person could, the potential harm that could arise from representation by an attorney with a conflict of interest. Furthermore, the district court went to great lengths during the Garcia hearing to explain how the conflicts may arise, how they may affect Stephens's performance as an advocate for Mouton at trial, and how Mouton could be adversely affected. It is beyond debate that Mouton understood the problem and knowingly took his chances with Stephens. We limit our holding to the facts of this case; when a defendant who is an attorney with twenty years of experience unequivocally waives his right to conflict free counsel, following a full Garcia hearing, and when the potential conflict arises from counsel's dual representation of co-conspirators and counsel's tangential link to the conspiracy himself, the integrity of the judicial system is not undermined and the accused has not been deprived of his right to effective assistance of counsel. Compare United States v. Greig, 967 F.2d 1018 (5th Cir.1992) (holding that when the court failed to hold a Garcia hearing, an attorney who twice initiated ex parte communications with a defendant other than the defendant that he was representing, and thereby was open to an indictment for obstruction of justice as well as severe disciplinary measures and monetary sanctions, could not continue to represent the defendant); United States v. Snyder, 707 F.2d 139 (5th Cir.1983) (holding that the likelihood of public suspicion outweighs the social interest served by an attorney's representation of the defendant when the attorney himself had already been indicted for his participation in the defendant's crime). The district court did not err in accepting Mouton's waiver of conflict-free counsel.
53 To prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Mouton must meet the well known criteria of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690, 696, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2066, 2069, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). 54 Mouton has identified various acts and omissions by his attorney that he argues fell outside the range of professional judgment. 11 We need not determine whether these acts fell outside the range of competent assistance before determining whether Mouton was prejudiced by the conduct. 12 Mouton has made no showing that the outcome of his trial would have been different but for his attorney's alleged errors. Furthermore, our review of the record indicates that the evidence presented against Mouton was overwhelming, and it is highly unlikely that, if his attorney had acted differently, the jury would have reached any decision other than finding Mouton guilty. He has failed to prove that he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel.
55 Mouton argues that the court erred in increasing his offense level by two under United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 1B1.3 (Nov. 1990), which provides that adjustments to offense levels shall be made on the basis of all acts caused by the defendant that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in preparation for that offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that offense. The probation officer adjusted Mouton's base offense level upward based on the government's assertion that 116.5 kilograms should be included within relevant conduct. Mouton claims that the district court's finding that his conduct involved 116.5 kilograms of cocaine is based on hearsay, thereby violating his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. 56 Having reviewed the transcript of Mouton's sentencing hearing, we find that the court's conclusion that Mouton's conduct involved 116.5 kilograms of cocaine was not based solely on hearsay. 13 The court did not err in increasing Mouton's sentence under § 1B1.3.