Warren Burger

Summary

Warren Burger Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475… (1978 | noyear)

The potential for conflict of interest in representing multiple defendants is so grave that ordinarily a lawyer should decline to act for more than one of several co-defendants except in unusual situations when, after careful investigation, it is clear that no conflict is likely to develop and when the several defendants give an informed consent to such multiple representation.
Source: Wikisource

Warren Burger Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475… (1978 | noyear)

But in a case of joint representation of conflicting interests, the evil—it bears repeating—is in what the advocate finds himself compelled to refrain from doing, not only at trial but also as to possible pretrial plea negotiations and in the sentencing process. It may be possible in some cases to identify from the record the prejudice resulting from an attorney's failure to undertake certain trial tasks, but, even with a record of the sentencing hearing available, it would [p491] be difficult to judge intelligently the impact of a conflict on the attorney's representation of a client.
Source: Wikisource

Warren Burger Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475… (1978 | noyear)

The mere physical presence of an attorney does not fulfill the Sixth Amendment guarantee when the advocate's conflicting obligations have effectively sealed his lips on crucial matters.
Finally, a rule requiring a defendant to show that a conflict of interests—which he and his counsel tried to avoid by timely objections to the joint representation—prejudiced him in some specific fashion would not be susceptible of intelligent, evenhanded application. In the normal case where a harmless error rule is applied, the error occurs at trial, and its scope is readily identifiable.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature