Legal Document

435 U.S. 475 98 Supreme Court Reporter 1173 55 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 426 Winston M. HOLLOWAY et al., Petitioners,v.State of ARKANSAS. Number 76-5856. Argued Nov. 2, 1977. Decided April 3, 1978. Syllabus Petitioners, three codefendants at a state criminal trial in Arkansas, made timely motions, both few weeks before the and jury was empaneled, for appointment separate counsel, based on their appointed counsel's representations that, because confidential information received from codefendants, he confronted with risk representing conflicting interests could not, therefore, provide effective assistance each client. The court denied these petitioners were subsequently convicted. Arkansas affirmed, concluding that record showed no actual co flict or prejudice to petitioners. Held: 1. judge's failure either appoint counsel take adequate steps ascertain whether conflict too remote warrant face by again deprived guarantee "assistance counsel" under Sixth Amendment. Pp. 481-487. (a) has duty refrain embarrassing multiple defendants insisting even suggesting undertake concurrently represent might conflict, when possibility inconsistent is brought home formal objections, representations. Glasser versus States, 315 60, 76, 62 457, 467, 86 L.Ed. 680. 484-485. (b) An attorney's request his regarding interests, should be granted, considering best position professionally ethically determine such exists will probably develop trial; obligation, upon discovering advise once; and, as an officer court, so advises virtually oath. 485-486. (c) Here prospect dilatory practices attorney present justify court's response repeated motions counsel. 486-487. 2. Whenever improperly requires joint representation over objection reversal automatic, presumed regardless it independently shown. supra, 75-76, 467. 487-491. among those "constitutional rights basic fair infraction can never treated harmless error," Chapman California, 386 18, 23, 87 824, 827, 17 705. Pacific KF135 P2 489. That physically pretrial proceedings, during trial, sentencing does not departure general rule requiring automatic reversal. 489-490. A defendant show interests—which tried avoid objections representation—prejudiced him some specific fashion would susceptible intelligent, evenhanded application. 490-491. 260 Ark. 250, 539 South Western Reporter, 2nd 435, reversed remanded. Harold L. Hall, Little Rock, Ark., Joseph Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 Purvis, respondent, pro hac vice, special leave Court. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion 1 We granted certiorari decide denial motions. 430 965, 97 1643, 52 355 (1977). 2 * Early morning June 1, 1975, men entered restaurant robbed terrorized five employees restaurant. During course robbery, one two female raped other, twice. ensuing police investigation led arrests 3 On July 29, charged count robbery counts rape. August 5, public de ender, all defendants. Petitioners then arraigned pleaded guilty. Two days later, cases set consolidated commence September 4. 4 13 Hall moved petitioner "the ha[d] stated there interest . .." After conducting hearing this motion, petitioners' severance, declined counsel.1 5 Before same judge who later presided conducted Jackson Denno hearing2 admissibility confession purportedly Campbell officers time arrest. essence had remained, armed rifle, flight stairs above site rapes (apparently serving lookout), but taken part rapes. ruled admissible, ordered deletion references Campbell's codefendants. At arresting testified confession. 6 4, renewed motion "on grounds may testify if they do, & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions able cross-examine them have them." responded, "I don't know why you wouldn't," motion.3 7 prosecution proceeded its case. manager identified Holloway robbers. Another male employee Welch. third only Holloway. victim single rape Welch robbers unable identify man her. double first rapist. She second rapist 8 day after rested case, advised against recommendation, decided testify. He stated: 9 "Now, since been appointed, previously filed asking possible interest. This now coming up wants 10 "THE COURT: That's right; let There Every try more than person blames other one. 11 "MR. HALL: talked defendants, individually, collectively. 12 Now talk collectively." indicated satisfaction understood nature consequences right own behalf, whereupon observed: 14 am where less muzzled any cross-examination. 15 You your witness. 16 Or examine them. them, righ prosecuting that. 18 If [defendant] takes stand, somebody needs protect two's while testifying, can't do individually. 19 Well, assume, individually collectively, too. They say want think it's perfectly alright [sic ] to, not. It's business. 20 21 "Each said testify, cross-examination witnesses, just direct examination you. 22 Your Honor, put ask them— (Interposing) stand tell testify; go ahead relate what to. need do."4 23 took testifying described brother's home. His brother given similar testimony. When witness shows him, Holloway, cannot questions tend incriminate .. Now, thing ladies gentlemen about case responded did "have kind speech ready anything. thought going questioned." denied, night interrupted, asking: 24 "Your are we allowed make objection? 25 No, sir. care objections. 26 trying say. 27 proceed like Hall. witnesses anyhow." 28 unguided testimony, denying involvement crime stating occurred. gave testimony stand. also making officers. 29 rejected versions events presented alibi witness, returned guilty verdicts counts. appeal Court, raised claim attorney, objection, violated federal constitutional guarantees In resolving issue, relied characterized majority rule: 30 "[T]he must material basis alleged interest, reversible error occurs co-defendants." 256, 439 31 Turning observed failed outline clients manner which knowledge created loyalties. Because none incriminated concluded demonstrated petitioners, therefore affirmed. II 32 More 35 years ago, 680 (1942), held whose District Amendment Government conspiracy defraud States. Kretske, represented initially however, Kretske became dissatisfied dismissed him. Judge thereupon asked Glasser's Stewart, Kretske. Stewart noting interests: lead link together. known objected proposal. nevertheless continued retained Both 33 contended Stewart's ineffective between clients. 'Assistance Counsel' guaranteed contemplates untrammeled unimpaired order lawyer simultaneously interests." Id., 70, S.Ct., 465. disclosed linked object admission arguably inadmissible evidence. viewed result desire Kretske's thus "indicative struggle serve masters 75, identifying inquire flowing instead conviction reversed. conviction, 34 One principle applicable here emerges without ambiguity. Requiring permitting often referred representation, per se violative recognizes appropriately attorney; indeed, cases, certain advantages accrue representation. Frankfurter's view: "Joint means insuring reciprocal recrimination. common defense gives strength attack." 92, (dissenting opinion).5 Since decided, courts divergent approaches issues commonly challenges where—unlike case—trial nothing actuality several clients' interests. First, appellate differed how strong showing made, reviewing asserted existed, conclude Compare ex rel. Hart Davenport, 478 Federal 203 (CA3 1973); Lollar 126 U.S.App.D.C. 200, 376 243 (1967); People Chacon, 69 Cal.2d 765, 73 Cal.Rptr. 10, 447 106 (1968); State Kennedy, Wash.App. 633, 508 1386 (1973), Lovano, 420 769, 773 (CA2 1970); see collected Annot., American Law Reports, 3rd 470, 477-507 (1970). Second, respect scope affirmative assure Lawriw, 568 (CA8 1977); Carrigan, 543 1053 1976); Foster, 469 (CA1 1972), Foxworth Wainwright, 516 1072 (CA5 1975), Williams, 429 158 1970).6 resolve however. accompanying representations, focused explicitly probable counsel.7 hold failure, counsel." 36 conclusion supported Court's reasoning : 37 "Upon rests seeing solicitude essential accused. accused 38 39 "Of equal importance insisting, suggesting, diverge client, divergence court." U.S., 71, 465, 467 (emphasis added). 40 applicability "possibility [petitioners'] interests" "brought court" It arguable, perhaps, requests vigorously great r detail. As former, responses hardly encouraged pursuit separate-counsel claim; presenting detail, violating, disclosure, confidentiality 41 Additionally, decision Glasser, most granted. See, e. g., Shuttle Smith, 296 F.Supp. 1315 (Vt.1969); Davis, 110 Ariz. 514 1025 (1973); Brazile, 226 La. 254, 75 So.2d 856 (1954); Commonwealth LaFleur, Mass.App. 327, North Eastern 517 (1973). holding, acknowledged effect interrelated considerations. "attorney matter trial." 31, P.2d, 1027. attorneys once problem. Ibid.8 Finally, " 'when address solemnly declarations oath.' 266, So.2d, 860-861.9 (Emphasis deleted.) find considerations persuasive. 42 argues, credit Hall's tantamount transferring authority existence State's view, ultimate matters remain judge; otherwise unscrupulous abuse "authority," presumably purposes delay obstruction orderly conduct trial.10 43 obvious avoiding abuses. But our holding undermine untimely purposes, impair ability deal resort tactics. Cf. Dardi, 330 316 (CA2), cert. 379 845, 85 50, 50 (1964); Kroeger, 61 236, 593, 390 369 (1964). Nor preclude exploring adequacy disclosure communications client.11 See supra. simply it, failure. III 44 issue remains committed convictions. generally assumed reversal, absence complaining codefendant, whenever permits Austin Erickson, 477 620 Gougis, 374 758 (CA7 1967); State, 63 Wis.2d 304, 217 352 (1974); Whitling Russell, 406 Pa. 45, 176 Atlantic 641 (1962); Note, Criminal Codefendants Amendment: Case Separate Counsel, 58 Geo.L.J. 369, 387 (1969). Some commentators argued, reverse automatically rather affirm unless demonstrate prejudice. Woods, 544 242 (CA6 1976), 969, 1652, 361 (1977); Geer, Representation Multiple Defendants: Conflicts Interest Professional Responsibilities Defense Attorney, Minn.L.Rev. 119, 122-125 (1978). argument aspects Glasser. although forced "show prejudiced [him] manner." 468 justified part, emphasizing weakness Government's evidence him; guilt close question, "error, circumstances ground brushed aside immaterial, real chance provided slight impetus swung scales toward guilt." 67, 463 Assessing prosecution's is, course, step applying harmless-error standard. Schneble Florida, 405 427, 92 1056, 340 (1972); Harrington 395 89 1726, 284 45 read automatic. 46 "To precise degree sustained [district] difficult unnecessary. fundamental absolute allow indulge nice calculations amount arising denial. Snyder Massachusetts, 291 97, 116, 54 330, 78 674; Tumey Ohio, 273 510, 535, 47 437, 71 749; Patton 281 276, 292, 253, 74 854." language presupposes express degree. cited clear 749 (1927), example, stands "[a] [the occurred], particular shown clearly guilty." 43, 837, 705 (1967) (Stewart, J., concurring); id., n. 8, 827 (opinion Court). refusal contrary interpretation raise challenge 77, 468; Brief Petitioner O.T. 1941, 31. indicates, argued co-conspirators. 76-77, context, required prejudice; finding none, affirmed convictions including 48 Moreover, error." 827. Accordingly, presence throughout critical stage in, least, capital offense, Gideon 372 335, 83 792, 799 (1963); Hamilton Alabama, 368 52, 82 157, 114 (1961); White Maryland, 373 59, 1050, 193 (1963). 49 rule. Joint suspect tends prevent doing. For well precluded plea negotiations agreement prosecution, lesser charge favorable recommendation acceptable. Generally speaking, challenging prejudicial client perhaps another, arguing relative culpability minimize another. Examples readily multiplied. mere physical fulfill advocate's obligations effectively sealed lips crucial matters. normal applied, identifiable. confidence relatively narrow task assessing likelihood materially affected deliberations jury. 24-26, 828-829, Hamling 418 87, 108, 94 2887, 2902, 590 (1974), Unite Valle-Valdez, 554 911, 914-917 (CA9 1977). evil—it bears repeating—is advocate finds himself compelled doing, process. resulting tasks, available intelligently impact And assess options, tactics, decisions impossible. Thus, inquiry into require, unlike speculation. 51 remand further proceedings opinion. ordered. 53 POWELL whom BLACKMUN REHNQUIST join, dissenting. While disavowing holds today "either worked violation embodied Fourteenth Amendments. accepts inability being trigger inquiry. appropriate omission assumes proportion violation. agree convictions, contains seeds merely demand respectfully dissent. useful contrast today's relevant previous ruling, (1942). lawyer, though "inconsistency defense" counseled 68, 464. simultaneous "conflicting rest determination "[t]he [had been] ." Instead, support "impairment" [could not] seriously doubted." 467; 56 Today's goes beyond limits informative affidavit sufficient bring play Constitution inquiry, additional reveals "con licting approach premised Rather, presumes equating guarantee. justification appears difficulty post hoc reconstruction different outcome, strategy, obtained engaged requisite Although account allocation burden persuasion prejudice, infra, 1184-1185, convinced prophylactic gloss requirements area law. Miranda Arizona, 384 436, 1602, 694 (1966). 57 Several suggest leaves little room maneuver seeks substantiality Apparently, "was counsel," ante, 484, formulation suggests minimal offers view expected proffer "a clients." Ante, 485. concededly necessary states "without client." 487, 11.1 intimations coupled policy 488-489, path cleared potentially disruptive demands predicated solely Recognition role adding protective layers detract obligation reasonable probability need. my proper accommodation securing delay, potential disruption, costs inherent counsel,2 achieved sweep broadly follow Courts Appeals recognized minimizing predicate interests."3 59 Ordinarily early commencement trial.4 satisfactory proffer, careful satisfy itself likely parties involved valid objection." DeBerry, 487 448, 453 1973). hearing, possession facts, Upon showing, appointed. "If carried out extent attacks bear heavy indeed persuading" "that was, reason, 1972). If, held, lack judicial shifts proof question Government." 1053, 1056 1976). 60 484 7, shifted establish improbability met assertion defenses mutually inconsistent, infrequent consequence improper Nevertheless, offer inference hampered defense. Donahue, 560 1039, 1044-1045 found case,5 judgment Arkansas. No transcript included record, informed transcribed. Denno, 378 368, 84 1774, 908 response, back statement, read, statements, 479 480, directly contradictory. alert assisting presentation reason believe false or, version facts earlier confidence. Bar Association Project Standards Relating Administration Justice, Function § 7.7(c) Page 133 (1974). By inquiring waiver, confirmed waive unhindered contend waived right. Trial 3.4(b), 171 (1974): "Whenever jointly charged, consolidated, conflicts jeopardize fidelity indication suggest, demonstrating insubstantiality representations—based, nearly ascertained, codefendants' newly formed respecting So far cut off opportunity conclusory oral disclose Tr. Oral Arg. 14-15. occasion significance, any, midtrial 3.5(b), 123 (1974) cautions: "Except preliminary initial hearings applications bail, lawyers associated practice defend grave ordinarily decline act co-defendants except unusual situations when, investigation, give consent representation." considered comes weight commensurate penalties risked misrepresentation. Such risks undoubtedly present; adversary system. abundant power misrepresent facts. require compel concludes damaging Code Responsibility, DR 4-101(C)(2) creates significant unfair especially called impose sentences propose tension lawyer-client privilege. reject assumption discuss concrete terms difficulties betraying communications. persuaded pursue meaningful breach confidentiality. Experience somewhat analogous claims exemption Freedom Information Act, KF62 552 (1976 ed.), supports point. EPA Mink, 410 73, 92-94, 93 839, 119 Vaughn Rosen, 157 340, 820 415 977, 1564, 873 Each addition m ltiple presents increased opportunities setting date, disposing selecting jury, itself. Additional enhance errors. light professional canons ethics, cf. 5-105(D) (1969); Allen 184 Colo. 202, 205-206, 519 351, 353 6-7, 15-16, disrupt operation defender offices. 1055-1056 1976): "The rise deprivation settled Circuit instance exist appellant Mari, 526 [117,] [(CA2 1975)]; Vowteras, 500 1210, 1211 (2d Cir.), 419 1069, 95 656, 665 Wisniewski, 274, Cir. 397 1071, 90 1515, carefully inquired elicited personal involved. barren concern Government. "In F.2d, 453-54, noted approval First (1st 6." proper, interposed motion. Of become apparent proceeds. To guard strategic disruption substantial unlikely independent overlap identification consistency alibis advanced Welch, half brothers, used alibi. participant rapes, endorse effort culpable But, extricate cause. event, nullification because, below noted, "had principal." (1976). Conceivably alibi, wished argue apprehended culprits, arrest due mistaken identification. succeeded tack impeded witnesses. sum, reasonably revealed

Classification Label: 1