Court Opinion

ID: 9473778
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:39:15.437803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:43.619501
License: Public Domain

FAIRCHILD, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring.
With respect, I do not believe that the cited portions of Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980), control the claim of conflict of interest made here. Cuyler dealt with the possibility of conflict where an attorney represents two or more ‘defendants. Multiple representation is not present here.
Because there was no evidentiary hearing, we are assuming arguendo the truth of Marrera’s allegation that his counsel had a financial interest in exploiting the movie rights. We necessarily assume also that counsel did not adequately warn Marrera of the risk of apparent self-incrimination involved in the trip to Hollywood.
In this peculiar set of facts, and unlike most situations where counsel has a conflict of interest, we can identify the sole inadequacy of counsel which may have been the result of the conflict, i.e., counsel’s arranging the Hollywood trip. We can also identify the only adverse impact produced by the conflict, i.e., the introduction of evidence concerning the trip and the adverse implications the jury may have drawn therefrom.
I concur in affirmance because I am wholly satisfied the verdict would have been the same if there had been no conflict and no Hollywood trip.