Co-defendants: Criminal Cases

Question 1

Holloway v. Arkansad

Answer 1

The attorney representing both defendants. Told judge there was a conflict of interest and would need to cross-examine one on behalf of other. Judge told L he had to continue representation. Both defendants went to jail. One appealed.

Rule: When an attorney informs the court of the conflict of interest and is nonetheless forced to represent both defendants, the defendants will get a new trial.

Question 2

Cuyler v. Sullivan

Answer 2

non raised the objection until after one of the ∆s was convicted. Wanted to access to Holloway standard. SC said no, under those circumstances, the L did not raise it to the court and therefore the standard is different.

Rule: Must show that the lawyer had a conflict of interest and it adversely affected the client. Must show ∆ counsel “actively represented conflicting interest”

Test:

1. Actual conflict
2. The conflict adversely affected the representation

Remember: prejudice does not need to be shown instead must show adversely affected representation.

Question 3

Michekns v. Taylor

Answer 3

The defense lawyer had previously represented the victim in an unrelated criminal case. Then took on representation of the defendant who was accussed of raping and killing victim. Evidence that the victim may have been a prostitute and sexual relations were consensual may have affected the defendant. L did not raise conflict with the court. Cuyler Standard applies (need to show adversely affected).

Question 4

Wheat v. United States

Answer 4

Disqualigies the L for conflict of interest over the objection of the L and the consents of the clients. ∆ appealed and was denied his counsel of choice. Ct said doesn’t deprive Wheat of 6th Amendment rights.