Court Opinion

ID: 9559702
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:33:58.902969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:33.698351
License: Public Domain

BROWN, Justice (Retired),
dissenting.
The majority opinion is well written and generally contains sound law and logical reasoning. The small flaw in the opinion, as I see it, is that it deals with a different case than the one on appeal before this court. The majority address circumstances where the trial judge assigns an attorney to represent two or more defendants in the same case, and such dual representation results in prejudice.
In the case before this court, two defendants employed and chose, I repeat, chose, to be represented by the same attorney. Furthermore, there is not the slightest indication that either defendant was prejudiced by this dual representation or that there was a conflict of interest. The majority opinion does not cite a single case from any jurisdiction that addresses the same circumstances existing in this case.
Absent special circumstances, therefore, trial courts may assume either that multiple representation entails no conflict or that the lawyer and his clients knowingly accept such risk of conflict as may exist. Indeed, as the Court noted in Holloway [v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475] at 485-486 [98 S.Ct. 1173, 1179-80, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978)], trial courts necessarily rely in large measure upon the good faith and good judgment of defense counsel. “An ‘attorney representing two defendants in a criminal matter is in the best position professionally and ethically to determine when a conflict of interest *370exists or will probably develop in the course of a trial.’ ” Unless the trial court knows or reasonably should know that a particular conflict exists, the court need not initiate an inquiry.
Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 346-47, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 1717, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980) (citations omitted). This court should adopt the rule in Cuyler.
Suppose a different scenario in the case before us. Suppose the trial judge had refused to allow the lawyer employed by defendant to represent him and appointed another lawyer. If the defendant were then convicted, there would be a mighty weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, complaining that defendant had been denied counsel of his choice as guaranteed by the constitution. How would the majority of this court handle the dilemma that it is backing itself into? The majority here is saying that the trial judge must assume the role of big brother, act as counsel, and determine what is best for a defendant, even if it means not allowing him to be represented by counsel of his choice.
At trial, Rebecca Shongutsie, wife of appellant, was called to testify by defense counsel. In the majority opinion, an exchange between the prosecuting attorney and Mrs. Shongutsie on cross-examination is set out. Apparently the majority cites this exchange as an example of prejudice to appellant. In the exchange, if “we” includes appellant, and I suppose it does, then Mrs. Shongutsie’s testimony not only exonerated her but also the appellant. There is not one word in this exchange that would inculpate appellant by any stretch of the imagination.
It might be suspected that the majority had a predilection to reverse this case; it employed federal law that arguably supported its position and held contrary to federal law that would have upheld the trial court. According to the majority opinion, “federal cases establish that the trial court is under no affirmative obligation to inquire into the possibility of conflict of interest unless it ‘knows or reasonably should know that a particular conflict exists.’ Cuyler, 446 U.S. at 347, 100 S.Ct. at 1717.” At 365-366.
The majority here rejected the analysis of Cuyler and other Supreme Court cases, and adopted a rule more favorable to the criminal defendant:
[Pjrejudice will be presumed in all instances of multiple representation of criminal defendants and, in the absence of an appropriate waiver, multiple representation will constitute reversible error.
At 367.
After announcing the rule just indicated, the majority opinion details what the trial judge must do. The judge must, in effect, talk defendants out of being represented by the same attorney. They can only be represented by the same attorney if they “insist.” As indicated earlier, the majority places a more arduous burden on the trial court with respect to dual representation than the United States Supreme Court requires.
This is not the first time the Wyoming Supreme Court has made prosecution more difficult than the United States Supreme Court requires. For approximately twenty years before the mid-1970’s, the United States Supreme Court wreaked havoc on criminal prosecution. They worked overtime to find ways to reverse a conviction and to discover so-called rights of defendants that no one had ever dreamed of before. The United States Supreme Court recovered from this reversalitis in the mid-1970’s, but the Wyoming Supreme Court was already infected. Of comparatively recent date, the Wyoming Supreme Court has exhibited more enthusiasm than even the United States Supreme Court in reversing criminal convictions. In Westmark v. State, 693 P.2d 220, 222 (Wyo.1984) (Brown, J., specially concurring), the court reinstated a rule that any comment on, or allusion to, the accused’s right to remain silent, however innocuous or inadvertent, resulted in an automatic reversal. The United States Supreme Court would not do that. See United States v. Hastings, 461 U.S. 499, 103 S.Ct. 1974, 76 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983). The United States Supreme Court held that an accused is not entitled to a *371jury trial for petty offenses. Frank v. United States, 395 U.S. 147, 148, 89 S.Ct. 1503, 1505, 23 L.Ed.2d 162 (1969). However, the Wyoming Supreme Court held that they were. See Brenner v. City of Casper, 723 P.2d 558, 561 (Wyo.1986) (Brown, J., dissenting). In Phillips v. State, 774 P.2d 118, 122 (Wyo.1989) (Thomas and Golden, JJ., dissenting), and Harvey v. State, 774 P.2d 87, 93-94 (Wyo.1989) (Thomas and Golden, JJ., dissenting), the Wyoming Supreme Court placed time limits on criminal prosecution much shorter than any time limit imposed by the United States Supreme Court.
I do not have much enthusiasm for reversing the trial court by imposing rules more arduous than required by the United States Supreme Court. Imposing federal procedure rules (F.R.Cr.P. 44(e)) on the trial courts by opinion rather than by regular rule-making process is not entirely unreasonable, but it should be prospective and should not apply to this case.
I would affirm the trial court.