Court Opinion

ID: 9952755
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-20 18:00:47.250999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:44:25.665275
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-51003          Document: 134-1           Page: 1     Date Filed: 03/20/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                  ____________                                       Fifth Circuit

                                                                                   FILED
                                    No. 22-51003                             March 20, 2024
                                  ____________
                                                                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                   Clerk
United States of America,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                         versus

Jeffrey Fay Pike,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Texas
                           USDC No. 5:21-CV-1226
                  ______________________________

Before Stewart, Clement, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Jeffrey F. Pike appeals the district court’s decision disqualifying his
attorney because the attorney previously represented a government inform-
ant who was a potential witness in Pike’s case. We affirm.
      Pike was the president of the Bandidos Outlaws Motorcycle Club. He
was charged with several counts of conspiracy under the Racketeer Influ-
enced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). See United States v. Portillo,

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-51003       Document: 134-1       Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/20/2024

                                 No. 22-51003

969 F.3d 144, 157–59 (5th Cir. 2020). He retained Kent Schaffer to represent
him. But a district court disqualified Schaffer from representing Pike because
the lawyer previously represented Bandidos members who were potential
government witnesses.
       We review the disqualification of counsel due to conflict of interest for
abuse of discretion. See United States v. Sanchez Guerrero, 546 F.3d 328, 332–
33 (5th Cir. 2008). We find no abuse of discretion here.
       “The Sixth Amendment right to choose one’s own counsel is
circumscribed in several important respects.” Wheat v. United States, 486
U.S. 153, 159 (1988).      We “recognize a presumption in favor of [a
defendant’s] counsel of choice, but that presumption may be overcome not
only by a demonstration of actual conflict but by a showing of a serious
potential for conflict.” Id. at 164. “[T]he district court must be allowed
substantial latitude in refusing waivers of conflicts of interest not only in
those rare cases where an actual conflict may be demonstrated before trial,
but in the more common cases where a potential for conflict exists which may
or may not burgeon into an actual conflict as the trial progresses.” Id. at 163;
see also United States v. Gharbi, 510 F.3d 550, 553 (5th Cir. 2007).
       There is ample record evidence of a conflict to support the district
court’s decision to disqualify here. Schaffer conceded that he previously
represented Bandidos members, and that he reviewed all their case files.
Certified public records confirmed that Schaffer, and a member of his firm,
represented the government’s cooperating witnesses during the RICO
conspiracy.
       Nor did the district court violate Pike’s due-process rights when it
allowed the names of the government witnesses in question to be concealed

                                       2
Case: 22-51003         Document: 134-1          Page: 3      Date Filed: 03/20/2024

                                     No. 22-51003

from the defense in these proceedings. 1 We have long permitted the use of
in camera proceedings to determine whether an informant’s identity should
be revealed. See United States v. De Los Santos, 810 F.2d 1326, 1335 (5th Cir.
1987). See also United States v. Anderson, 509 F.2d 724, 728–30 (9th Cir.)
(finding no due process violation by an in camera hearing to determine
whether to disclose the identity of the informant). And we see no due-
process violation where, as here, certified public records confirmed the
conflict, and the defendant was given a hearing and the opportunity to
present argument in opposition to disqualification. See United States v.
Garcia, 114 F. App’x 292, 294 (9th Cir. 2004).
        We affirm.

        _____________________
        1
         We review Pike’s due-process claim de novo. See United States v. Burns, 526 F.3d
852, 859 (5th Cir. 2008).

                                           3