cuyler
sullivan
argued
february
decided
may
two
privately
retained
lawyers
represented
respondent
two
others
charged
murders
respondent
tried
first
made
objection
multiple
representation
defense
rested
close
prosecutor
case
respondent
convicted
two
codefendants
later
acquitted
separate
trials
respondent
sought
collateral
relief
pennsylvania
law
alleging
received
effective
assistance
counsel
lawyers
represented
conflicting
interests
hearing
defense
lawyers
testified
pennsylvania
common
pleas
denied
relief
pennsylvania
affirmed
finding
multiple
representation
concluding
decision
rest
defense
reasonable
trial
tactic
respondent
next
sought
habeas
corpus
relief
federal
district
accepted
pennsylvania
conclusion
respondent
lawyer
represent
defendants
concluded
respondent
adduced
evidence
conflict
interest
appeals
third
circuit
reversed
held
participation
two
lawyers
three
trials
established
matter
law
lawyers
represented
three
defendants
possibility
conflict
among
interests
represented
lawyers
established
violation
respondent
sixth
amendment
right
counsel
held
appeals
exceed
proper
scope
review
rejected
pennsylvania
conclusion
two
lawyers
undertaken
multiple
representation
pennsylvania
conclusion
mixed
determination
law
fact
covered
provides
state
determination
hearing
merits
factual
issue
shall
presumed
correct
pp
state
criminal
trial
proceeding
initiated
conducted
state
action
state
within
meaning
fourteenth
amendment
defendant
retained
counsel
provide
adequate
legal
assistance
guaranteed
sixth
amendment
serious
risk
injustice
infects
trial
state
obtains
conviction
trial
state
unconstitutionally
deprives
defendant
liberty
thus
merit
petitioner
claim
failings
retained
counsel
provide
basis
federal
habeas
corpus
relief
pp
respondent
entitled
federal
habeas
corpus
relief
upon
showing
state
trial
failed
inquire
potential
conflicts
interest
lawyers
possible
conflict
interests
pp
sixth
amendment
requires
state
trial
investigate
timely
objections
multiple
representation
unless
state
trial
knows
reasonably
know
particular
conflict
exists
need
initiate
inquiry
propriety
multiple
representation
circumstances
case
sixth
amendment
imposed
upon
trial
affirmative
duty
inquire
pp
unless
trial
fails
afford
defendant
objects
multiple
representation
opportunity
show
potential
conflicts
impermissibly
imperil
right
fair
trial
reviewing
presume
possibility
conflict
resulted
ineffective
assistance
counsel
case
defendant
must
demonstrate
actual
conflict
interest
adversely
affected
adequacy
representation
pp
possibility
conflict
interest
insufficient
impugn
criminal
conviction
order
establish
violation
sixth
amendment
defendant
must
show
actual
conflict
interest
adversely
affected
lawyer
performance
powell
delivered
opinion
burger
stewart
white
blackmun
rehnquist
stevens
joined
part
iii
brennan
joined
parts
ii
iii
marshall
joined
brennan
filed
opinion
concurring
part
concurring
result
post
marshall
filed
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
post
steven
goldblatt
argued
cause
petitioners
brief
michael
henry
marianne
cox
marilyn
gelb
argued
cause
filed
brief
respondent
justice
powell
delivered
opinion
question
presented
whether
state
prisoner
may
obtain
federal
writ
habeas
corpus
showing
retained
defense
counsel
represented
potentially
conflicting
interests
respondent
john
sullivan
indicted
gregory
carchidi
anthony
dipasquale
murders
john
gorey
rita
janda
victims
labor
official
companion
shot
death
gorey
office
philadelphia
headquarters
teamsters
local
francis
mcgrath
janitor
saw
three
defendants
building
shooting
appeared
awaiting
someone
encouraged
mcgrath
work
another
day
mcgrath
ignored
suggestions
shortly
afterward
gorey
arrived
went
office
mcgrath
heard
sounded
like
firecrackers
exploding
rapid
succession
carchidi
room
mcgrath
working
abruptly
directed
mcgrath
leave
building
say
nothing
mcgrath
hastily
complied
returned
building
minutes
later
defendants
gone
victims
bodies
discovered
next
morning
two
privately
retained
lawyers
fred
dibona
charles
peruto
represented
three
defendants
throughout
state
proceedings
followed
indictment
sullivan
different
counsel
medical
examiner
inquest
thereafter
accepted
representation
two
lawyers
retained
codefendants
afford
pay
lawyer
time
sullivan
lawyers
object
multiple
representation
sullivan
first
defendant
come
trial
evidence
entirely
circumstantial
consisting
primarily
mcgrath
testimony
close
commonwealth
case
defense
rested
without
presenting
evidence
jury
found
sullivan
guilty
fixed
penalty
life
imprisonment
sullivan
motions
failed
pennsylvania
affirmed
conviction
equally
divided
vote
commonwealth
sullivan
sullivan
codefendants
carchidi
dipasquale
acquitted
separate
trials
sullivan
petitioned
collateral
relief
pennsylvania
post
conviction
hearing
act
stat
tit
et
seq
purdon
supp
alleged
among
claims
denied
effective
assistance
counsel
defense
lawyers
represented
conflicting
interests
five
days
hearings
common
pleas
heard
evidence
sullivan
carchidi
sullivan
lawyers
judge
presided
sullivan
trial
dibona
peruto
different
recollections
roles
trials
three
defendants
dibona
testified
peruto
associate
counsel
trial
app
peruto
recalled
chief
counsel
carchidi
depasquale
merely
assisted
dibona
sullivan
trial
dibona
peruto
also
gave
conflicting
accounts
decision
rest
sullivan
defense
dibona
said
encouraged
sullivan
testify
even
though
commonwealth
presented
weak
case
peruto
remembered
want
ed
defense
go
thought
exposing
defense
witnesses
two
trials
coming
sullivan
testified
deferred
lawyers
decision
present
evidence
defense
testimony
suggested
sullivan
preferred
take
stand
might
disclosed
extramarital
affair
finally
carchidi
claimed
appeared
sullivan
trial
rebut
mcgrath
testimony
carchidi
statement
time
murders
common
pleas
held
sullivan
take
second
direct
appeal
counsel
assisted
adequately
first
appeal
app
pet
cert
pass
directly
claim
defense
counsel
conflict
interest
found
counsel
fully
advised
sullivan
decision
testify
claims
collateral
relief
rejected
reserved
consideration
new
appeal
pennsylvania
affirmed
sullivan
original
conviction
denial
collateral
relief
commonwealth
sullivan
saw
basis
sullivan
claim
denied
effective
assistance
counsel
trial
found
peruto
merely
assisted
dibona
sullivan
trial
dibona
merely
assisted
peruto
trials
two
defendants
thus
concluded
dual
representation
true
sense
term
also
found
resting
defense
reasonable
tactic
denied
sullivan
effective
assistance
counsel
exhausted
state
remedies
sullivan
sought
habeas
corpus
relief
district
eastern
district
pennsylvania
petition
referred
magistrate
found
sullivan
defense
counsel
represented
conflicting
interests
district
however
accepted
pennsylvania
conclusion
multiple
representation
also
found
assuming
multiple
representation
evidence
adduced
state
postconviction
proceeding
revealed
conflict
interest
app
pet
cert
appeals
third
circuit
reversed
ex
rel
sullivan
cuyler
first
held
participation
dibona
peruto
trials
sullivan
codefendants
established
matter
law
lawyers
represented
three
defendants
recognized
multiple
representation
tantamount
denial
effective
assistance
counsel
held
criminal
defendant
entitled
reversal
conviction
whenever
makes
showing
possible
conflict
interest
prejudice
however
remote
quoting
walker
per
curiam
cert
denied
see
also
ex
rel
hart
davenport
acknowledged
resting
close
prosecutor
case
legitimate
tactical
decision
made
independent
counsel
nevertheless
thought
action
alone
raised
possibility
conflict
sufficient
prove
violation
sullivan
sixth
amendment
rights
found
support
conclusion
peruto
admission
concern
sullivan
codefendants
affected
judgment
sullivan
present
defense
give
weight
dibona
contrary
testimony
held
require
showing
actual
prejudice
granted
certiorari
consider
recurring
issues
left
unresolved
holloway
arkansas
vacate
remand
ii
outset
must
consider
whether
appeals
exceeded
proper
scope
review
rejected
pennsylvania
conclusion
dibona
peruto
undertaken
multiple
representation
petitioners
claim
determination
pennsylvania
factfinding
entitled
presumption
correctness
section
provides
determination
hearing
merits
factual
issue
made
state
competent
jurisdiction
evidenced
written
finding
written
opinion
reliable
adequate
written
indicia
shall
presumed
correct
unless
applicant
federal
writ
habeas
corpus
establish
one
enumerated
causes
exception
pennsylvania
holding
fall
within
statute
conclusion
law
rather
finding
fact
townsend
sain
examined
distinction
law
fact
applies
collateral
review
state
conviction
townsend
opinion
precursor
noted
phrase
issues
fact
refers
termed
basic
primary
historical
facts
facts
sense
recital
external
events
credibility
narrators
quoting
brown
allen
opinion
frankfurter
findings
roles
dibona
peruto
played
defenses
sullivan
codefendants
facts
sense
holding
lawyers
played
roles
engage
multiple
representation
mixed
determination
law
fact
requires
application
legal
principles
historical
facts
case
cf
brewer
williams
neil
biggers
holding
open
review
collateral
attack
federal
appeals
carefully
recited
facts
concluded
dibona
peruto
represented
sullivan
codefendants
noted
lawyers
prepared
defense
consultation
three
defendants
advised
sullivan
whether
rest
defense
played
important
roles
three
trials
fact
transcript
sullivan
trial
shows
peruto
rather
dibona
rested
defense
app
agree
appeals
facts
establish
existence
multiple
representation
iii
turn
next
claim
alleged
failings
sullivan
retained
counsel
provide
basis
writ
habeas
corpus
conduct
retained
counsel
involve
state
action
state
prisoner
win
federal
writ
habeas
corpus
upon
showing
state
participated
denial
fundamental
right
protected
fourteenth
amendment
right
counsel
guaranteed
sixth
amendment
fundamental
right
argersinger
hamlin
case
sullivan
retained
lawyers
claims
conflict
interest
hampered
advocacy
allege
state
officials
knew
known
lawyers
conflict
interest
thus
must
decide
whether
failure
retained
counsel
provide
adequate
representation
render
trial
fundamentally
unfair
violate
fourteenth
amendment
decisions
establish
state
criminal
trial
proceeding
initiated
conducted
state
action
state
within
meaning
fourteenth
amendment
see
lisenba
california
moore
dempsey
recognized
much
gideon
wainwright
held
defendant
must
face
felony
charges
state
without
assistance
counsel
guaranteed
sixth
amendment
denied
due
process
law
unless
defendant
charged
serious
offense
counsel
able
invoke
procedural
substantive
safeguards
distinguish
system
justice
serious
risk
injustice
infects
trial
see
johnson
zerbst
state
obtains
criminal
conviction
trial
state
unconstitutionally
deprives
defendant
liberty
see
argersinger
hamlin
supra
decisions
make
clear
inadequate
assistance
satisfy
sixth
amendment
right
counsel
made
applicable
fourteenth
amendment
guilty
plea
open
attack
ground
counsel
provide
defendant
reasonably
competent
advice
mcmann
richardson
see
tollett
henderson
furthermore
procedures
restrict
lawyer
tactical
decision
put
defendant
stand
unconstitutionally
abridge
right
counsel
brooks
tennessee
requiring
defendant
first
defense
witness
ferguson
georgia
prohibiting
direct
examination
defendant
see
also
geders
herring
new
york
thus
sixth
amendment
require
appoint
counsel
indigent
defendants
right
counsel
prevents
conducting
trials
persons
face
incarceration
must
defend
without
adequate
legal
assistance
proper
respect
sixth
amendment
disarms
petitioner
contention
defendants
retain
lawyers
entitled
less
protection
defendants
state
appoints
counsel
may
assume
confidence
counsel
whether
retained
appointed
protect
rights
accused
experience
teaches
cases
retained
counsel
provide
adequate
representation
vital
guarantee
sixth
amendment
stand
little
often
uninformed
decision
retain
particular
lawyer
reduce
forfeit
defendant
entitlement
constitutional
protection
since
state
conduct
criminal
trial
implicates
state
defendant
conviction
see
basis
drawing
distinction
retained
appointed
counsel
deny
equal
justice
defendants
must
choose
lawyers
iv
come
last
sullivan
claim
denied
effective
assistance
counsel
guaranteed
sixth
amendment
lawyers
conflict
interest
claim
raises
two
issues
expressly
reserved
holloway
arkansas
first
whether
state
trial
judge
must
inquire
propriety
multiple
representation
even
though
party
lodges
objection
second
whether
mere
possibility
conflict
interest
warrants
conclusion
defendant
deprived
right
counsel
holloway
single
public
defender
represented
three
defendants
trial
trial
refused
consider
appointment
separate
counsel
despite
defense
lawyer
timely
repeated
assertions
interests
clients
conflicted
recognized
lawyer
forced
represent
codefendants
whose
interests
conflict
provide
adequate
legal
assistance
required
sixth
amendment
given
trial
failure
respond
timely
objections
however
consider
whether
alleged
conflict
actually
existed
simply
held
trial
error
unconstitutionally
endangered
right
counsel
holloway
requires
state
trial
courts
investigate
timely
objections
multiple
representation
nothing
precedents
suggests
sixth
amendment
requires
state
courts
initiate
inquiries
propriety
multiple
representation
every
case
defense
counsel
ethical
obligation
avoid
conflicting
representations
advise
promptly
conflict
interest
arises
course
trial
absent
special
circumstances
therefore
trial
courts
may
assume
either
multiple
representation
entails
conflict
lawyer
clients
knowingly
accept
risk
conflict
may
exist
indeed
noted
holloway
supra
trial
courts
necessarily
rely
large
measure
upon
good
faith
good
judgment
defense
counsel
attorney
representing
two
defendants
criminal
matter
best
position
professionally
ethically
determine
conflict
interest
exists
probably
develop
course
trial
quoting
state
davis
unless
trial
knows
reasonably
know
particular
conflict
exists
need
initiate
inquiry
nothing
circumstances
case
indicates
trial
duty
inquire
whether
conflict
interest
provision
separate
trials
sullivan
codefendants
significantly
reduced
potential
divergence
interests
participant
sullivan
trial
ever
objected
multiple
representation
dibona
opening
argument
sullivan
outlined
defense
compatible
view
none
defendants
connected
murders
see
brief
respondent
opening
argument
also
suggested
counsel
afraid
call
witnesses
whose
testimony
might
needed
trials
sullivan
codefendants
see
finally
appeals
noted
counsel
critical
decision
rest
sullivan
defense
face
reasonable
tactical
response
weakness
circumstantial
evidence
presented
prosecutor
facts
conclude
sixth
amendment
imposed
upon
trial
affirmative
duty
inquire
propriety
multiple
representation
holloway
reaffirmed
multiple
representation
violate
sixth
amendment
unless
gives
rise
conflict
interest
see
since
possible
conflict
inheres
almost
every
instance
multiple
representation
defendant
objects
multiple
representation
must
opportunity
show
potential
conflicts
impermissibly
imperil
right
fair
trial
unless
trial
fails
afford
opportunity
reviewing
presume
possibility
conflict
resulted
ineffective
assistance
counsel
presumption
preclude
multiple
representation
even
cases
common
defense
gives
strength
common
attack
quoting
glasser
frankfurter
dissenting
order
establish
violation
sixth
amendment
defendant
raised
objection
trial
must
demonstrate
actual
conflict
interest
adversely
affected
lawyer
performance
glasser
example
record
showed
defense
counsel
failed
prosecution
witness
whose
testimony
linked
glasser
crime
failed
resist
presentation
arguably
inadmissible
evidence
found
omissions
resulted
counsel
desire
diminish
jury
perception
codefendant
guilt
indeed
evidence
counsel
struggle
serve
two
masters
seriously
doubted
since
actual
conflict
interest
impaired
glasser
defense
reversed
conviction
dukes
warden
presented
contrasting
situation
dukes
pleaded
guilty
advice
two
lawyers
one
also
represented
dukes
codefendants
unrelated
charge
dukes
later
learned
lawyer
sought
leniency
codefendants
arguing
cooperation
police
induced
dukes
plead
guilty
dukes
argued
lawyer
conflict
interest
infected
plea
found
nothing
record
indicate
alleged
conflict
resulted
ineffective
assistance
counsel
fact
render
plea
question
involuntary
unintelligent
quoting
dukes
warden
since
dukes
identify
actual
lapse
representation
affirmed
denial
habeas
corpus
relief
glasser
established
unconstitutional
multiple
representation
never
harmless
error
concluded
glasser
lawyer
actual
conflict
interest
refused
indulge
nice
calculations
amount
prejudice
attributable
conflict
conflict
demonstrated
denial
right
effective
assistance
counsel
thus
defendant
shows
conflict
interest
actually
affected
adequacy
representation
need
demonstrate
prejudice
order
obtain
relief
see
holloway
supra
defendant
shows
counsel
actively
represented
conflicting
interests
established
constitutional
predicate
claim
ineffective
assistance
see
glasser
supra
appeals
granted
sullivan
relief
shown
multiple
representation
case
involved
possible
conflict
interest
hold
possibility
conflict
insufficient
impugn
criminal
conviction
order
demonstrate
violation
sixth
amendment
rights
defendant
must
establish
actual
conflict
interest
adversely
affected
lawyer
performance
sullivan
believes
prevail
even
standard
emphasizes
peruto
admission
decision
rest
sullivan
defense
reflected
reluctance
expose
witnesses
later
might
testified
defendants
petitioner
hand
points
dibona
contrary
testimony
evidence
sullivan
wished
avoid
taking
stand
since
appeals
weigh
conflicting
contentions
proper
legal
standard
judgment
vacated
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
pennsylvania
denied
two
petitions
reargument
see
commonwealth
sullivan
pomeroy
concurring
dissenting
meanwhile
sullivan
pro
se
petitions
federal
habeas
corpus
relief
dismissed
failure
exhaust
state
remedies
see
ex
rel
sullivan
cuyler
supra
indeed
appeals
noted
pennsylvania
first
divided
evenly
whether
commonwealth
evidence
sufficient
support
conviction
judge
garth
judges
adams
rosenn
joined
filed
opinion
dissenting
denial
petition
rehearing
en
banc
petitioners
must
rely
solely
state
holding
state
heard
evidence
sullivan
petition
collateral
relief
decide
whether
defense
counsel
represented
conflicting
interests
see
supra
state
resolved
issue
second
direct
appeal
without
benefit
trial
finding
since
conclude
determination
whether
counsel
undertook
multiple
representation
finding
fact
need
decide
whether
statements
appellate
determination
hearing
merits
factual
issue
within
meaning
compare
velleca
superintendent
per
curiam
hill
nelson
per
curiam
although
petitioners
present
state
action
argument
appeals
parties
briefed
argued
since
resolution
question
law
predicate
intelligent
resolution
question
granted
certiorari
see
vance
terrazas
must
address
see
laboratories
university
illinois
foundation
see
generally
stern
gressman
practice
pp
ed
see
generally
fitzgerald
estelle
en
banc
godbold
concurring
part
dissenting
part
cert
denied
west
louisiana
vacated
remanded
en
banc
see
polur
retained
counsel
assigned
counsel
dichotomy
appeals
third
circuit
said
ex
rel
hart
davenport
rule
apply
one
fourteenth
amendment
test
assigned
counsel
another
retained
counsel
produce
anomaly
nonindigent
must
retain
attorney
afford
one
entitled
less
protection
effect
upon
defendant
confinement
result
unfair
state
trial
whether
inadequate
attorney
assigned
retained
certain
cases
proposed
federal
rule
criminal
procedure
provides
federal
district
courts
shall
promptly
inquire
respect
joint
representation
shall
personally
advise
defendant
right
effective
assistance
counsel
including
separate
representation
see
also
aba
project
standards
criminal
justice
function
trial
judge
app
draft
several
courts
appeals
already
invoke
supervisory
power
require
similar
inquires
see
waldman
deberry
cox
cert
denied
lawriw
cert
denied
cf
ford
app
promulgation
rule
suggests
view
exercise
supervisory
power
desirable
practice
see
generally
schwarzer
dealing
incompetent
counsel
trial
judge
role
harv
rev
although
circuits
said
explicitly
sixth
amendment
require
inquiry
possibility
conflicts
steel
per
curiam
cert
denied
mavrick
recent
opinion
second
circuit
held
otherwise
colon
fogg
aba
code
professional
responsibility
dr
ec
aba
project
standards
criminal
justice
defense
function
app
draft
seventy
percent
public
defender
offices
responding
recent
survey
reported
strong
policy
undertaking
multiple
representation
criminal
cases
percent
offices
responding
never
undertake
representation
lowenthal
joint
representation
criminal
cases
critical
appraisal
rev
private
bar
may
less
alert
importance
avoiding
multiple
representation
criminal
cases
see
geer
representation
multiple
criminal
defendants
conflicts
interest
professional
responsibilities
defense
attorney
rev
lowenthal
supra
see
kidding
cert
denied
mandell
cert
denied
geer
supra
cf
medel
foxworth
wainwright
substantial
majority
courts
appeals
require
defendants
contend
multiple
representation
violated
sixth
amendment
rights
identify
actual
conflict
interest
see
lovano
cert
denied
atkinson
cert
denied
foxworth
wainwright
supra
thacker
bordenkircher
cert
denied
mandell
supra
cox
kutas
cert
denied
cf
carrigan
burden
proof
shifts
trial
fails
inquire
possibility
conflict
see
comment
conflict
interests
multiple
representation
criminal
crim
justice
brennan
concurring
part
iii
opinion
result
agree
part
iii
ante
alleged
failure
retained
counsel
render
effective
assistance
involves
state
action
thus
provides
basis
writ
habeas
corpus
however
join
part
iv
opinion
holloway
arkansas
settled
sixth
amendment
right
effective
assistance
counsel
encompasses
right
representation
attorney
owe
conflicting
duties
defendants
holloway
also
established
defendants
usually
right
share
lawyer
choose
choice
must
always
knowing
intelligent
trial
judge
therefore
must
play
positive
role
ensuring
choice
made
intelligently
delay
defendant
attorney
raises
problem
constitution
also
protects
defendants
whose
attorneys
fail
consider
choose
ignore
potential
conflict
problems
upon
trial
judge
rests
duty
seeing
trial
conducted
solicitude
essential
rights
accused
trial
protect
right
accused
assistance
counsel
glasser
accused
may
waive
right
counsel
whether
proper
waiver
clearly
determined
trial
fitting
appropriate
determination
appear
upon
record
johnson
zerbst
principle
honored
accused
active
protection
trial
assuring
potential
divergence
interests
threatens
adequacy
counsel
representation
imposition
trial
require
find
whether
attorneys
representing
two
defendants
jointly
charged
joined
trial
use
language
proposed
federal
rule
criminal
procedure
probable
practical
matter
virtually
instances
joint
representation
appear
face
charging
papers
appearances
filed
attorneys
american
bar
association
standards
aba
project
standards
criminal
justice
function
trial
judge
app
draft
framed
premise
judges
readily
able
ascertain
instances
joint
representation
possible
conflict
inheres
almost
every
instance
multiple
representation
ante
therefore
upon
discovery
joint
representation
duty
trial
ensure
defendants
unwittingly
given
constitutional
right
effective
counsel
necessary
since
usually
case
defendants
know
rights
raise
surely
true
defendant
may
receiving
effective
assistance
counsel
result
conflicting
duties
owed
defendants
therefore
trial
safely
assume
silence
indicates
knowledgeable
choice
proceed
jointly
must
least
affirmatively
advise
defendants
joint
representation
creates
potential
hazards
defendants
consider
proceeding
representation
proposed
rule
provides
whenever
two
defendants
jointly
charged
pursuant
rule
joined
trial
pursuant
rule
represented
retained
assigned
counsel
retained
assigned
counsel
associated
practice
law
shall
promptly
inquire
respect
joint
representation
shall
personally
advise
defendant
right
effective
assistance
counsel
including
separate
representation
unless
appears
good
cause
believe
conflict
interest
likely
arise
shall
take
measures
may
appropriate
protect
defendant
right
counsel
though
proposed
rule
supra
provides
good
model
inquiry
need
take
particular
form
see
also
aba
project
standards
criminal
justice
function
trial
judge
app
draft
provides
whenever
two
defendants
jointly
charged
whose
cases
consolidated
represented
attorney
trial
judge
inquire
potential
conflicts
may
jeopardize
right
defendant
fidelity
counsel
appeals
held
respondent
successfully
carried
burden
demonstrating
possibility
prejudice
conflict
interest
independent
counsel
might
well
chosen
different
trial
strategy
ex
rel
sullivan
cuyler
based
holding
part
testimony
one
respondent
two
trial
attorneys
testified
chose
present
defense
respondent
case
partly
want
expose
defense
upcoming
trials
respondent
codefendants
also
want
risk
evidence
come
exculpating
respondent
might
inculpate
one
codefendants
ibid
credited
testimony
facts
case
demonstrate
contrary
view
ante
provision
separate
trials
always
reduce
potential
conflict
fact
potential
divergence
codefendants
interests
arose
part
precisely
separate
trials
justice
marshall
concurring
part
dissenting
part
agree
appeals
properly
concluded
respondent
lawyers
undertaken
multiple
representation
conviction
obtained
defendant
retained
counsel
provided
ineffective
assistance
involves
state
action
may
provide
basis
writ
habeas
corpus
accordingly
join
parts
ii
iii
opinion
believe
however
potential
conflict
interest
representing
multiple
defendants
grave
see
aba
project
standards
criminal
justice
defense
function
standard
app
draft
ed
whenever
two
defendants
represented
attorney
trial
judge
must
make
preliminary
determination
joint
representation
product
defendants
informed
choice
therefore
agree
justice
brennan
trial
duty
inquire
whether
multiple
representation
warn
defendants
possible
risks
representation
ascertain
representation
result
defendants
informed
choice
dissent
formulation
proper
standard
determining
whether
multiple
representation
violated
defendant
right
effective
assistance
counsel
holds
absence
objection
trial
defendant
must
show
actual
conflict
interest
adversely
affected
lawyer
performance
ante
holding
require
defendant
demonstrate
attorney
trial
performance
differed
defendant
attorney
client
believe
inconsistent
previous
cases
test
unduly
harsh
incurably
speculative
well
appropriate
question
sixth
amendment
whether
actual
relevant
conflict
interests
existed
proceedings
conviction
must
reversed
since
conflict
present
case
affirm
judgment
appeals
cases
make
clear
every
defendant
constitutional
right
assistance
attorney
unhindered
conflict
interests
holloway
arkansas
assistance
counsel
guaranteed
sixth
amendment
contemplates
assistance
untrammeled
unimpaired
order
requiring
one
lawyer
shall
simultaneously
represent
conflicting
interests
glasser
possibility
inconsistent
interests
clients
brought
home
means
objection
trial
may
require
joint
representation
objection
made
trial
appropriate
inquiry
whether
conflict
actually
existed
course
representation
simultaneous
representation
conflicting
interests
sixth
amendment
protects
defendant
need
go
show
existence
actual
conflict
actual
conflict
interests
negates
unimpaired
loyalty
defendant
constitutionally
entitled
expect
receive
attorney
moreover
showing
actual
conflict
adversely
affected
counsel
performance
unnecessary
often
impossible
task
emphasized
holloway
case
joint
representation
conflicting
interests
evil
bears
repeating
advocate
finds
compelled
refrain
may
possible
cases
identify
record
prejudice
resulting
attorney
failure
undertake
certain
trial
tasks
even
record
sentencing
hearing
available
difficult
judge
intelligently
impact
conflict
attorney
representation
client
assess
impact
conflict
interests
attorney
options
tactics
decisions
plea
negotiations
virtually
impossible
emphasis
original
present
case
peruto
testimony
credited
sufficient
make
case
ineffective
assistance
reason
conflict
interests
even
restrictive
reading
standard
usual
case
however
might
expect
attorney
unwilling
give
supportive
testimony
thereby
impugning
professional
efforts
moreover
many
cases
effects
conflict
attorney
performance
discernible
record
plain
therefore
instances
defendant
able
show
actual
relevant
conflict
unable
show
changed
attorney
conduct
possible
standard
articulated
may
require
defendant
demonstrate
attorney
chose
action
adverse
interests
conflicting
duty
another
client
arguably
attorney
make
decisions
concerning
representation
defendant
constraint
inconsistent
duties
imposed
actual
conflict
interests
adequacy
representation
adversely
affected
see
ante
defendant
must
show
counsel
actively
represented
conflicting
interests
case
view
mine
may
far
apart
determination
defendant
made
informed
choice
counsel
course
establish
waiver
prevent
subsequently
raising
claim
ineffective
assistance
counsel
based
conflict
interest
dangers
infringing
defendants
privilege
right
maintain
confidentiality
defense
strategy
foreclose
type
detailed
inquiry
necessary
establish
knowing
intelligent
waiver
furthermore
inquiry
take
place
early
stage
proceedings
possible
conflicts
might
anticipated
see
geer
representation
multiple
criminal
defendants
conflicts
interest
professional
responsibilities
defense
attorney
rev
appeals
cast
decision
terms
potential
conflict
interest
ex
rel
sullivan
cuyler
made
explicit
statement
actual
conflict
interest
existed
analysis
premised
however
conclusion
basis
reject
peruto
sworn
admission
injected
improper
considerations
relationship
ibid
statement
clearly
demonstrates
found
actual
relevant
conflict
interests
conflict
interests
term
often
used
seldom
defined
american
bar
associations
usage
remained
essentially
unchanged
since
promulgation
canons
professional
ethics
fair
statement
ordinarily
meant
term
meaning
adopt
aba
standards
state
lawyer
undertake
multiple
representation
duty
one
defendants
may
conflict
duty
another
aba
project
standards
criminal
justice
defense
function
standard
app
draft
ed
code
professional
responsibility
forbids
multiple
representation
likely
involve
lawyer
representing
differing
interests
unless
lawyer
adequately
represent
client
obtains
informed
consent
aba
code
professional
responsibility
disciplinary
rule
code
professional
responsibility
superseded
canons
professional
ethics
spoke
conflicting
interests
rather
differing
interests
term
defined
canon
lawyer
represents
conflicting
interests
behalf
one
client
duty
contend
duty
another
client
requires
oppose
aba
materials
course
define
constitutional
standard
however
consistent
glasser
emphasis
interests
defendants
corresponding
duties
owed
attorney
rather
empirical
question
effect
conflict
attorney
performance
see
comment
conflict
interests
multiple
representation
criminal
crim
possibility
conflict
interests
defendants
may
diverge
point
place
attorney
inconsistent
duties
actual
relevant
conflict
interests
course
representation
defendants
interests
diverge
respect
material
factual
legal
issue
course
action
glasser
defendant
objection
trial
joint
representation
lawyer
put
glasser
feels
represent
kretske
jury
get
idea
together
whether
attorney
performance
fact
affected
joint
representation
course
irrelevant
merits
claim
discuss
possibility
lawyer
failure
prosecution
witnesses
fully
object
admission
certain
evidence
result
joint
representation
possibility
jury
assume
birds
feather
flock
lawyer
greer
supra
objection
raised
trial
plainly
considered
sufficient
require
appointment
separate
counsel
kretske