Court Opinion

ID: 9431312
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:31:56.81802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:27.932708
License: Public Domain

Justice Stevens,
with whom Justice Blackmun joins, dissenting.
This is not the first case in which the Court has demonstrated “its apparent unawareness of the function of the independent lawyer as a guardian of our freedom.” Walters v. National Assn. of Radiation Survivors, 473 U. S. 305, 371 (1985) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (footnote omitted). But even under the Court’s paternalistic view of the citizen’s right to select his or her own lawyer, its analysis of this case is seriously flawed. As Justice Marshall demonstrates, the Court exaggerates the significance of the potential conflict. See ante, at 168-172. Of greater importance, the Court gives inadequate weight to the informed and voluntary character of the clients’ waiver of their right to conflict-free representation. Particularly, the Court virtually ignores the fact that additional counsel representing petitioner had provided him with sound advice concerning the wisdom of a waiver and would have remained available during the trial to assist in the defense. Thus, this is not a case in which the District Judge faced the question whether one counsel should be substituted for another; rather the question before him *173was whether petitioner should be permitted to have additional counsel of his choice. I agree with Justice Marshall that the answer to that question is perfectly clear.
Accordingly, although I agree with the Court’s premise that district judges must be afforded wide latitude in passing on motions of this kind,* in this case it is abundantly clear to me that the District Judge abused his discretion and deprived this petitioner of a constitutional right of such fundamental character that reversal is required.

In my view, deference to the trial judge is appropriate in light of his or her greater familiarity with such factors as the ability of the defendant knowingly and voluntarily to waive a potential conflict (including the possibility that a codefendant may be exerting undue influence over the defendant), the character of the lawyers, the particular facts of the case, and the availability of alternative counsel of a like caliber.