Legal Document

486 U.S. 153 108 S.Ct. 1692 100 L.Ed.2d 140 Mark Erick WHEAT, Petitionerv.UNITED STATES. No. 87-4. Argued March 2, 1988. Decided May 23, Rehearing Denied June 30, See 487 1243, 2918. Syllabus Petitioner, along with numerous codefendants including Gomez-Barajas and Bravo, was charged participating in a far-flung drug distribution conspiracy. At the time of petitioner's trial, District Court considering Gomez-Barajas' offer to plead guilty certain charges stemming from conspiracy, had already accepted Bravo's plea one count. Both Bravo were represented by attorney Iredale. Two court days before his trial commence, petitioner moved for substitution Iredale as counsel well. Despite assertion Sixth Amendment right choice, willingness, well that waive toconflict-free counsel, denied motion on basis irreconcilable unwaiveable conflicts interest created likelihood would be called testify at any subsequent Gomez-Barajas, trial. Petitioner therefore proceeded original convicted. The Appeals affirmed. Held: did not err declining waiver conflict-free refusing permit proposed attorneys. In multiple-representation cases, district courts have duty take such measures are appropriate protect criminal defendants against counsel's interest, issuance separate representation orders. Moreover, they often must do so pretrial stage, where relationships between parties unclear, dimensions nascent hard predict. provision waivers all affected will necessarily cure problems, since an independent assuring compliance ethical standards appearance fairness, several Courts demonstrated apparent willingness entertain ineffective-assistance claims who specifically waived counsel. Thus, allowed substantial latitude evaluate light their informed judgment facts circumstances each case, attempt Government "manufacture" conflict prevent defendant obtaining particularly able Although recognize presumption favor may overcome only demonstration actual but also showing serious potential conflict. Here, made close it cannot said abused its discretion, presented complex litigation likely engender if he permitted represent both codefendants. Pp. 158-164. 813 F.2d 1399, REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered opinion Court, which WHITE, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J., filed dissenting opinion, BRENNAN, joined, post, p. ----. STEVENS, BLACKMUN, John J. Cleary, San Diego, Cal., petitioner. Michael K. Kellogg, Washington, D.C., respondent. Chief Justice REHNQUIST Court. 1 issue this case is whether erred 2 * Wheat, codefendants, Over period years, many thousands pounds marijuana transported Mexico other locations southern California. acted primarily intermediary ring; received stored large shipments home, then distributed customers region. 3 Also conspiracy Juvenal Javier proceedings Eugene tried first acquitted overlapping those To avoid second charges, however, offered tax evasion illegal importation merchandise. commencement plea; thus free withdraw proceed 4 evidently lesser player decided forgo count transporting approximately 2,400 Los Angeles residence controlled Victor Vidal. conclusion August 22, 1985, notified been contacted asked try response, registered concern about possibility representation. After entertaining some initial discussion instructed present more detailed arguments following Monday, just day scheduled start 5 Monday hearing, objected ground Iredale's interest. Government's position premised two possible conflicts. First, yet sentencing arrangement negotiated Government; event rejected court, stand He faced prospect Iredale, meantime attorney. through participation scheme, familiar sources size income, witness Gomez-Barajas. This scenario pose prevented cross-examining thereby effectively representing 6 Second, immediate concern, directly affect ability act believed portion Vidal's eventually transferred regard, available petitioner, agreed exchange modify sentencing. testify, men become untenable, proscriptions forbid him cross-examine meaningful way. By failing so, fail provide effective assistance because prior urged reject 7 emphasized own choosing argued posited create highly speculative bore no connection true relationship co-conspirators. If simply say know dealings him; impeach necessary. Further, unlikely went importation, lack involvement alleged crimes improbable. Finally, most importantly, three allow future view, manufacturing implausible disqualify proved extremely Bravo. 8 hearing argument side, noted unfortunate suggested sooner, rather than ruled: 9 "[B]ased upon [its] memorandum really has choice point find exists. I don't think can waived, accordingly, Mr. Wheat's request substitute record denied." App. 100-101. 10 convicted possess 1,000 intent distribute, violation 21 U.S.C. § 846, five counts possessing 841(a)(1). 11 Ninth Circuit affirmed convictions, 1399 (1987), finding that, within limits prescribed Amendment, considerable discretion allowing found correctly balanced rights: (1) qualified one's (2) defense conducted Denial either these rights threatened appeal assigning ruling reversible error, concluded abuse or addition petitioner.1 12 Because expressed disagreement when override defendant's attorney's interest,2 we granted certiorari, 484 814, 66, 98 30 (1987). II 13 Constitution guarantees "[i]n prosecutions, accused shall enjoy . Assistance Counsel defence." United States v. Morrison, 449 361, 364, 101 665, 667, 66 564 (1981), observed designed assure fairness adversary process. Realizing unaided layman little skill arguing law coping intricate procedural system, Powell Alabama, 287 45, 69, 53 55, 64, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932); Ash, 413 300, 307, 93 2568, 2572-73, 37 619 (1973), held secures appointment necessary, crime. Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 83 792, 799 (1963). We further recognized purpose providing "is ensure receive fair trial," Strickland 466 668, 689, 104 2052, 2065, 80 674 (1984), evaluating claims, "the inquiry focuses adversarial process, accused's lawyer such." Cronic, 648, 657, n. 21, 2039, 2046 657 (1984). while select preferred comprehended essential aim guarantee advocate inexorably whom prefers. Morris Slappy, 461 1, 13-14, 103 1610, 1617-1618, 75 610 (1983); Jones Barnes, 463 745, 3308, 987 (1983). 14 choose circumscribed important respects. Regardless persuasive powers, member bar clients (other himself) court.3 Similarly, insist afford reasons declines defendant. Nor previous ongoing opposing party, even party Government. question raised extent under chosen fact same 15 multiple engenders special dangers aware. While "permitting single per se violative constitutional counsel," Holloway Arkansas, 435 475, 482, 1173, 1178, 55 426 (1978), confronted alerted adequate steps ascertain warrant Cuyler Sullivan, 446 1708, 64 333 (1980). As Holloway: 16 "Joint conflicting interests suspect what tends doing. [A] challenging admission evidence prejudicial client perhaps favorable another, relative culpability order minimize emphasizing another." U.S., 489-490, 1181. 17 insists cures problems But flat rule deduced choice. Federal ensuring trials profession legal appear observe them. American Bar Association's Model Code Professional Responsibility Rules Conduct, rules California Association (which governed attorneys case), impose limitations clients. ABA DR5-105(C) (1980); Rule 1.7 (1984); Conduct State California, 7, Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code Ann. 6076 (West 1974). Not institutional rendition verdicts cases jeopardized unregulated 18 For reason, Criminal Procedure direct judges investigate specially involving joint pertinent part, 44(c) provides: 19 "[T]he promptly inquire respect personally advise Unless appears there good cause believe arise, counsel." 20 does specify particular taken option Notes Advisory Committee separately case. U.S.C.App., 650. suggestion comports our instructions Glasser States, 315 60, 62 457, 86 680 (1942), courts, objection parties, contravene Amendment. sure, need arises part legitimate wish judgments remain intact appeal. accurately pointed out, representations face being "whip-sawed" assertions error matter way rule. agrees representation, advocacy thereafter impaired result, claim assistance. See, e.g., Burger Kemp, 483 776, 107 3114, 97 638 On hand, court's refusal accede result challenge solve problem, note, without passing on, ex rel. Tonaldi Elrod, 716 431, 436-437 (CA7 1983); Vowteras, 500 1210, 1211 (CA2), cert. denied, 419 1069, 95 656, 42 665 (1974); see Glasser, supra, 70, S.Ct., 465 ("To preserve protection Bill Rights hard-pressed defendants, indulge every reasonable fundamental rights"). 22 justifiably finds doubt decline proffer waiver, represented. Third stated Dolan, 570 1177, 1184 (1978): 23 "[W]hen impairs conform Responsibility, should required tolerate inadequate Such constitutes breach professional ethics invites disrespect integrity detrimental judge attacks over adequacy subtle implicating comprehension waiver." 24 Unfortunately concerned, pass wisdom hindsight after place, murkier pre-trial context seen glass, darkly. notoriously predict, thoroughly trials. It rare fortunate enough learn entire truth client, much less fully apprised witnesses stand. A few bits unforeseen testimony previously unknown unnoticed document significantly shift defendants. These imponderables difficult assess, convey explanation untutored niceties ethics. amiss obtain bear inverse relation care conveys necessary information 25 common exists burgeon into progresses. relied instinct based experience making decision. exceeded broad accorded course rightly points out seek having side; undoubtedly aware possibility, consideration factors inform sort 26 Here wished coequal straightforward prosecution; rather, defend conspirators varying stature scheme. intended call prosecution trial.4 might readily tied deliveries necessitating vigorous cross-examination unable ethically cross-examination. 27 kingpins ring, succeeded verdict acquittal him. arrangement. agreement rejected, probable resulting dilemma suffer. 28 Viewing situation hold Court's violate rights. Other reached differing opposite conclusions equal justification, mean "right" "wrong". evaluation standard left court. 29 accordingly Affirmed. BRENNAN joins, dissenting. 31 today concludes commit denying Wheat add discussing ruling, sets forth principles agree. acknowledges, must, Amendment's comprehends states although absolute, mandates accepting Having articulated principles, unaccountably grants decide overcome. consequence unwarranted deference decision respecting right, countenances patently incorrect. dissent. 32 long recognized, reaffirms, provides More 50 years ago, "[i]t hardly conceded, afforded opportunity secure choice." 53, 58, (1932). reiterated principle frequent occasions. Chandler Fretag, 348 3, 9, 4-5, 99 (1954); 464-65, (1942). Our statements score stem largely appreciation primary grant control conduct defense. stated, "grants make defense," "it suffers consequences fails." Faretta 422 806, 819-820, 2525, 2533, 45 562 (1975). An obviously critical aspect person serve assistant representative. addition, lodging selection generally promote 33 notes, absolute. When gravely imperils refuse situations indeed destroy states, means absent feared substantial.1 Unsupported dubious speculation suffice. show kind undermine respects, my differs significantly, all, ante, 161-162, 164. 34 disagree, justifies rejection entitled "broad latitude" accept 163; never explicitly endorsing appellate review, limit review determining occurred, approach, supports solely noting difficulty magnitude conflict, accords neither nature nor importance stake. 35 given constitute grounds rejecting counsel—that is, interest—is mixed determination fact. properly described requires results application established Townsend Sain, 293, 309, 6, 755 770 Appellate traditionally defer determinations. ibid.; Sumner Mata, 455 591, 597, 10, 102 1303, 1307, 71 480 (1982). (1980), deference. here, different relevant respect.2 36 inappropriateness deferring becomes significance account. Cf. Bose Corp. Consumers Union Inc., 485, 502-503, 1949, 1960-1961, 502 (1984) (stating "[w]hen governing provided Constitution," scrutiny important). stake nothing latitude," 163, vitiate right. rejects findings facilitate scrutinize closely Only appropriately protected. resolution instant flows deferential approach denial counsel; deference, upholding inconceivable. Indeed, standard, reversal order. mere concedes, support preventing retaining occasions, invariably risk imperil 346-348, 1717-1718; 482-483, 1177-1178, (1978). propriety depends showed clear failed showing. Neither posed threat causing 38 completed. obtained relating distribute marijuana. merchandise, trial; thus, require former client. divine rests premise go event, tells us, "petitioner's Iredale." Ante, 39 kind. offers reason agreement; posit brief occurrence retain agreement, later did. gone probably testified. contains indication stood sprang marijuana, jury charge. disingenuous 40 concern. notes asserts could "necessitat[ed] Ibid. facts, belie anticipated Contrary inference, testified time, identify petitioner; indeed, proceedings, heard other. eventual related shipment involved; contained reference Petitioner's prosecutor mentioned closing argument. All developments predictable ruled contours time. Given insignificance dispute, threaten interest.3 41 assuming cross-examination," insured wholly depriving requested substituted current added team. Had ordered removed. Especially availability precautionary measure, notion caused short ludicrous.4 gives shrift below. authority deny demands conviction reversed. 43 BLACKMUN 44 "its unawareness function guardian freedom." Walters National Assn. Radiation Survivors, 473 305, 371, 105 3180, 3215, 87 220 (1985) (STEVENS, dissenting) (footnote omitted). paternalistic view citizen's her lawyer, analysis seriously flawed. MARSHALL demonstrates, exaggerates 168-172. Of greater importance, weight voluntary character clients' Particularly, virtually ignores additional sound advice concerning remained during assist Judge another; agree answer perfectly clear. Accordingly, wide motions kind,* abundantly me deprived required. prejudiced conference absence, bargain limited addressed text reach rulings Appeals. re Paradyne Corp., 803 604, 611, (CA11 1986) (the "does broader societal administration justice maintenance 'public confidence system' ") (citation omitted); Grand Jury Subpoena Served Upon Doe, 781 238, 250-251 sub nom. Roe 475 1108, 106 1515, 89 914 (1986) ("[C]ourts power public maintaining judicial system outweighs right"); Reese, 699 803, 805 (CA6 1983) (a knowing "compelling circumstances"); Flanagan, 679 1072, 1076 (CA3 1982), "very likely"), rev'd grounds, 259, 1051, 79 288 holding (1975), himself voluntarily elects encompass wishes Tr. 728 et seq. His elicited demonstrate transportation drugs hoped link stating principle, address undisputed regarding prediction events, frequently task. decision, lax review. correct capable posing resolving question. generate decisions account reflect uncertainties existing ruling. very testimony, combined timing prosecutor's witness, raises attempted manufacture use 11th-hour development. Throughout negotiations guilty-plea motion, conceded plans witness. learned oppose arrange agreeing recommend reduction sentence. scarce value prosecutorial behavior plausibly viewed maneuver formidable adversary; gained kingpin motion: "Were [petitioner's] I'm sure want me, too. fantastic job [Gomez-Barajas] ." 124-125. stemmed equally governmental maneuvering significant engaging bad-faith another dispute somewhat obliquely suggests helps justify 155, 157, 163. notwithstanding proximity date, continuance insofar consider issues raised. itself sufficient issues. Far timing, issued merits full briefing oral familiarity knowingly (including codefendant exerting undue influence defendant), lawyers, alternative like caliber.

Classification Label: 0