Court Opinion

ID: 9731721
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:56:07.069317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:20.812994
License: Public Domain

Krivosha, C.J.,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion in this case. I believe that it is, indeed, a better practice to permit each defendant separate counsel, when requested, and whereas in this case it appears that separate counsel was requested and denied, the relief requested here should be granted. As we noted in State v. Stevenson & Jackson, 200 Neb. 624, 264 N.W.2d 848 (1978), if a conflict of interest arises in the representation of more than one defendant, the mere existence of such conflict raises a presumption of prejudice and reversal is automatic. I believe here that where not only do the parties allege, but their court-appointed counsel also admits, that there was some conflict and that pressure was brought to bear on the three defendants to enter pleas of guilty, there is sufficient evidence of a conflict of interest. For that reason, I would have granted the relief requested and ordered new trials in these cases.
McCown and White, JJ., join in this dissent.