holloway
arkansas
argued
november
decided
april
petitioners
three
codefendants
state
criminal
trial
arkansas
made
timely
motions
weeks
trial
jury
empaneled
appointment
separate
counsel
based
appointed
counsel
representations
confidential
information
received
codefendants
confronted
risk
representing
conflicting
interests
therefore
provide
effective
assistance
client
trial
denied
motions
petitioners
subsequently
convicted
arkansas
affirmed
concluding
record
showed
actual
conflict
interests
prejudice
petitioners
held
trial
judge
failure
either
appoint
separate
counsel
take
adequate
steps
ascertain
whether
risk
conflict
interests
remote
warrant
separate
counsel
face
representations
made
counsel
trial
jury
empaneled
deprived
petitioners
guarantee
assistance
counsel
sixth
amendment
pp
trial
duty
refrain
embarrassing
counsel
multiple
defendants
insisting
even
suggesting
counsel
undertake
concurrently
represent
interests
might
conflict
possibility
inconsistent
interests
brought
home
formal
objections
motions
counsel
representations
glasser
pp
attorney
request
appointment
separate
counsel
based
representations
regarding
conflict
interests
granted
considering
best
position
professionally
ethically
determine
conflict
exists
probably
develop
trial
obligation
upon
discovering
conflict
advise
officer
advises
virtually
oath
pp
prospect
dilatory
practices
attorney
present
justify
trial
failure
take
adequate
steps
response
repeated
motions
appointment
separate
counsel
pp
whenever
trial
improperly
requires
joint
representation
timely
objection
reversal
automatic
prejudice
presumed
regardless
whether
independently
shown
glasser
supra
pp
assistance
counsel
among
constitutional
rights
basic
fair
trial
infraction
never
treated
harmless
error
chapman
california
attorney
representing
multiple
defendants
conflicting
interests
physically
present
pretrial
proceedings
trial
sentencing
warrant
departure
general
rule
requiring
automatic
reversal
pp
rule
requiring
defendant
show
conflict
interests
counsel
tried
avoid
timely
objections
joint
representation
prejudiced
specific
fashion
susceptible
intelligent
evenhanded
application
pp
burger
delivered
opinion
brennan
stewart
white
marshall
stevens
joined
powell
filed
dissenting
opinion
blackmun
rehnquist
joined
post
harold
hall
argued
cause
filed
brief
petitioners
joseph
purvis
assistant
attorney
general
arkansas
argued
cause
pro
hac
vice
respondent
brief
bill
clinton
attorney
general
robert
alston
newcomb
assistant
attorney
general
howard
eisenberg
filed
brief
national
legal
aid
defender
assn
amicus
curiae
urging
reversal
rollie
rogers
filed
brief
office
colorado
state
public
defender
amicus
curiae
chief
justice
burger
delivered
opinion
petitioners
codefendants
trial
made
timely
motions
appointment
separate
counsel
based
representations
appointed
counsel
confidential
information
received
codefendants
confronted
risk
representing
conflicting
interests
therefore
provide
effective
assistance
client
granted
certiorari
decide
whether
petitioners
deprived
effective
assistance
counsel
denial
motions
early
morning
june
three
men
entered
little
rock
restaurant
robbed
terrorized
five
employees
restaurant
course
robbery
one
two
female
employees
raped
twice
ensuing
police
investigation
led
arrests
petitioners
july
three
defendants
charged
one
count
robbery
two
counts
rape
august
trial
appointed
harold
hall
public
defender
represent
three
defendants
petitioners
arraigned
pleaded
guilty
two
days
later
cases
set
consolidated
trial
commence
september
august
hall
moved
appoint
separate
counsel
petitioner
defendants
ha
stated
possibility
conflict
interest
cases
conducting
hearing
motion
petitioners
motions
severance
declined
appoint
separate
counsel
trial
judge
later
presided
petitioners
trial
conducted
jackson
denno
hearing
determine
admissibility
confession
purportedly
made
petitioner
campbell
two
police
officers
time
arrest
essence
confession
campbell
entered
restaurant
codefendants
remained
armed
rifle
one
flight
stairs
site
robbery
rapes
apparently
serving
lookout
taken
part
rapes
trial
judge
ruled
confession
admissible
ordered
deletion
references
campbell
codefendants
trial
one
arresting
officers
testified
campbell
confession
september
jury
empaneled
hall
renewed
motion
appointment
separate
counsel
grounds
one
two
defendants
may
testify
able
received
confidential
information
responded
know
denied
motion
prosecution
proceeded
present
case
manager
restaurant
identified
petitioners
holloway
campbell
two
robbers
another
male
employee
identified
holloway
petitioner
welch
third
identified
holloway
victim
single
rape
identified
holloway
welch
two
robbers
unable
identify
man
raped
victim
double
rape
identified
holloway
first
rapist
unable
identify
second
rapist
identified
campbell
one
robbers
second
day
trial
prosecution
rested
case
hall
advised
recommendation
three
defendants
decided
testify
stated
since
appointed
previously
filed
motion
asking
appoint
separate
attorney
defendant
possible
conflict
interest
conflict
probably
coming
since
one
wants
testify
right
let
testify
conflict
interest
every
time
try
one
person
one
blames
one
hall
talked
one
defendants
talked
individually
collectively
talk
collectively
position
less
muzzled
right
witness
hall
examine
right
examine
right
prosecuting
attorney
hall
one
defendant
takes
stand
somebody
needs
protect
two
interest
one
testifying
ca
since
talked
one
individually
well
talked
assume
individually
collectively
say
want
testify
think
perfectly
right
sic
testify
want
business
defendant
said
wants
testify
witnesses
direct
examination
hall
honor
ca
even
put
direct
examination
ask
interposing
put
stand
tell
advised
rights
want
testify
tell
man
go
ahead
relate
wants
need
honor
allowed
make
objection
sir
counsel
take
care
objections
hall
honor
trying
say
ca
proceed
like
tell
hall
right
witnesses
anyhow
jury
rejected
versions
events
presented
three
defendants
alibi
witness
returned
guilty
verdicts
counts
appeal
arkansas
petitioners
raised
claim
representation
single
appointed
attorney
objection
violated
federal
constitutional
guarantees
effective
assistance
counsel
resolving
issue
relied
characterized
majority
rule
record
must
show
material
basis
alleged
conflict
interest
reversible
error
occurs
single
representation
ark
ii
years
ago
glasser
held
requiring
attorney
represent
two
codefendants
whose
interests
conflict
district
denied
one
defendants
sixth
amendment
right
effective
assistance
counsel
case
government
tried
five
codefendants
joint
trial
conspiracy
defraud
two
defendants
glasser
kretske
represented
initially
separate
counsel
second
day
trial
however
kretske
became
dissatisfied
attorney
dismissed
district
judge
thereupon
asked
glasser
attorney
stewart
also
represent
kretske
stewart
responded
noting
possible
conflict
interests
representation
glasser
kretske
might
lead
jury
link
two
men
together
glasser
also
made
known
objected
proposal
district
nevertheless
appointed
stewart
continued
glasser
retained
counsel
represent
kretske
men
convicted
glasser
contended
stewart
representation
trial
ineffective
conflict
interests
two
clients
held
assistance
counsel
guaranteed
sixth
amendment
contemplates
assistance
untrammeled
unimpaired
order
requiring
one
lawyer
simultaneously
represent
conflicting
interests
record
disclosed
stewart
failed
government
witness
whose
testimony
linked
glasser
conspiracy
failed
object
admission
arguably
inadmissible
evidence
failure
viewed
result
stewart
desire
protect
kretske
interests
thus
indicative
stewart
struggle
serve
two
masters
identifying
conflict
interests
declined
inquire
whether
prejudice
flowing
harmless
instead
ordered
glasser
conviction
reversed
kretske
conviction
however
affirmed
one
principle
applicable
emerges
glasser
without
ambiguity
requiring
permitting
single
attorney
represent
codefendants
often
referred
joint
representation
per
se
violative
constitutional
guarantees
effective
assistance
counsel
principle
recognizes
cases
multiple
defendants
appropriately
represented
one
attorney
indeed
cases
certain
advantages
might
accrue
joint
representation
justice
frankfurter
view
joint
representation
means
insuring
reciprocal
recrimination
common
defense
often
gives
strength
common
attack
glasser
supra
dissenting
opinion
since
glasser
decided
however
courts
taken
divergent
approaches
two
issues
commonly
raised
challenges
joint
representation
unlike
case
trial
counsel
nothing
advise
trial
actuality
possibility
conflict
several
clients
interests
first
appellate
courts
differed
strong
showing
conflict
must
made
certain
reviewing
must
asserted
conflict
existed
conclude
defendants
deprived
right
effective
assistance
counsel
compare
ex
rel
hart
davenport
lollar
app
people
chacon
cal
state
kennedy
app
lovano
see
also
cases
collected
second
courts
differed
respect
scope
nature
affirmative
duty
trial
judge
assure
criminal
defendant
deprived
right
effective
assistance
counsel
joint
representation
conflicting
interests
compare
lawriw
carrigan
foster
foxworth
wainwright
williams
need
resolve
two
issues
case
however
trial
counsel
pretrial
motions
august
september
accompanying
representations
made
officer
focused
explicitly
probable
risk
conflict
interests
judge
failed
either
appoint
separate
counsel
take
adequate
steps
ascertain
whether
risk
remote
warrant
separate
counsel
hold
failure
face
representations
made
counsel
weeks
trial
jury
empaneled
deprived
petitioners
guarantee
assistance
counsel
conclusion
supported
reasoning
glasser
upon
trial
judge
rests
duty
seeing
trial
conducted
solicitude
essential
rights
accused
trial
protect
right
accused
assistance
counsel
equal
importance
duty
see
accused
assistance
counsel
duty
refrain
embarrassing
counsel
defense
accused
insisting
indeed
even
suggesting
counsel
undertake
concurrently
represent
interests
might
diverge
first
client
possibility
divergence
brought
home
emphasis
added
additionally
since
decision
glasser
courts
held
attorney
request
appointment
separate
counsel
based
representations
officer
regarding
conflict
interests
granted
see
shuttle
smith
supp
state
davis
state
brazile
la
see
commonwealth
lafleur
mass
app
holding
courts
acknowledged
given
effect
several
interrelated
considerations
attorney
representing
two
defendants
criminal
matter
best
position
professionally
ethically
determine
conflict
interest
exists
probably
develop
course
trial
state
davis
supra
second
defense
attorneys
obligation
upon
discovering
conflict
interests
advise
problem
ibid
finally
attorneys
officers
address
judge
solemnly
upon
matter
declarations
virtually
made
oath
state
brazile
supra
emphasis
deleted
find
considerations
persuasive
state
argues
however
credit
hall
representations
trial
tantamount
transferring
defense
counsel
authority
trial
judge
rule
existence
risk
conflict
appoint
separate
counsel
state
view
ultimate
decision
matters
must
remain
trial
judge
otherwise
unscrupulous
defense
attorneys
might
abuse
authority
presumably
purposes
delay
obstruction
orderly
conduct
trial
state
obvious
interest
avoiding
abuses
holding
undermine
interest
untimely
motion
separate
counsel
made
dilatory
purposes
holding
impair
trial
ability
deal
counsel
resort
tactics
cf
dardi
cert
denied
people
kroeger
cal
holding
preclude
trial
exploring
adequacy
basis
defense
counsel
representations
regarding
conflict
interests
without
improperly
requiring
disclosure
confidential
communications
client
see
state
davis
supra
case
trial
simply
failed
take
adequate
steps
response
repeated
motions
objections
representations
made
prospect
dilatory
practices
present
justify
failure
iii
issue
remains
whether
error
committed
petitioners
trial
requires
reversal
convictions
generally
assumed
glasser
requires
reversal
even
absence
showing
specific
prejudice
complaining
codefendant
whenever
trial
improperly
permits
requires
joint
representation
see
austin
erickson
gougis
hall
state
commonwealth
ex
rel
whitling
russell
note
criminal
codefendants
sixth
amendment
case
separate
counsel
geo
courts
commentators
argued
however
appellate
courts
reverse
automatically
cases
rather
affirm
unless
defendant
demonstrate
prejudice
see
woods
cert
denied
geer
representation
multiple
criminal
defendants
conflicts
interest
professional
responsibilities
defense
attorney
rev
argument
rests
two
aspects
decision
glasser
first
although
concluded
stewart
forced
represent
conflicting
interests
reverse
conviction
kretske
stewart
client
kretske
failed
show
denial
glasser
constitutional
rights
prejudiced
manner
emphasis
added
second
justified
reversal
glasser
conviction
part
emphasizing
weakness
government
evidence
guilt
close
question
error
circumstances
ground
reversal
brushed
aside
immaterial
since
real
chance
might
provided
slight
impetus
swung
scales
toward
guilt
emphasis
added
assessing
strength
prosecution
evidence
defendant
course
one
step
applying
standard
see
schneble
florida
harrington
california
read
opinion
glasser
however
holding
whenever
trial
improperly
requires
joint
representation
timely
objection
reversal
automatic
glasser
stated
determine
precise
degree
prejudice
sustained
glasser
result
district
appointment
stewart
counsel
kretske
difficult
unnecessary
right
assistance
counsel
fundamental
absolute
allow
courts
indulge
nice
calculations
amount
prejudice
arising
denial
cf
snyder
massachusetts
tumey
ohio
patton
moreover
concluded
assistance
counsel
among
constitutional
rights
basic
fair
trial
infraction
never
treated
harmless
error
chapman
california
supra
accordingly
defendant
deprived
presence
assistance
attorney
either
throughout
prosecution
critical
stage
least
prosecution
capital
offense
reversal
automatic
gideon
wainwright
hamilton
alabama
white
maryland
attorney
representing
multiple
defendants
conflicting
interests
physically
present
pretrial
proceedings
trial
sentencing
warrant
departure
general
rule
joint
representation
conflicting
interests
suspect
tends
prevent
attorney
example
case
may
well
precluded
defense
counsel
campbell
exploring
possible
plea
negotiations
possibility
agreement
testify
prosecution
provided
lesser
charge
favorable
sentencing
recommendation
acceptable
generally
speaking
conflict
may
also
prevent
attorney
challenging
admission
evidence
prejudicial
one
client
perhaps
favorable
another
arguing
sentencing
hearing
relative
involvement
culpability
clients
order
minimize
culpability
one
emphasizing
another
examples
readily
multiplied
mere
physical
presence
attorney
fulfill
sixth
amendment
guarantee
advocate
conflicting
obligations
effectively
sealed
lips
crucial
matters
finally
rule
requiring
defendant
show
conflict
interests
counsel
tried
avoid
timely
objections
joint
representation
prejudiced
specific
fashion
susceptible
intelligent
application
normal
case
rule
applied
error
occurs
trial
scope
readily
identifiable
accordingly
reviewing
undertake
confidence
relatively
narrow
task
assessing
likelihood
error
materially
affected
deliberations
jury
compare
chapman
california
supra
hamling
case
joint
representation
conflicting
interests
evil
bears
repeating
advocate
finds
compelled
refrain
trial
also
possible
pretrial
plea
negotiations
sentencing
process
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
thus
inquiry
claim
harmless
error
require
unlike
cases
unguided
speculation
accordingly
reverse
remand
proceedings
inconsistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
see
jackson
denno
probable
judge
response
know
referred
back
counsel
statement
able
response
read
judge
later
statements
see
infra
directly
contradictory
record
reveals
trial
defense
counsel
alert
defense
counsel
obligation
avoid
assisting
presentation
counsel
reason
believe
false
testimony
least
testimony
contrary
version
facts
given
earlier
confidence
cf
aba
project
standards
relating
administration
criminal
justice
defense
function
inquiring
glasser
whether
waiver
also
confirmed
defendant
may
waive
right
assistance
attorney
unhindered
conflict
interests
case
however
arkansas
contend
petitioners
waived
right
see
aba
project
standards
relating
administration
criminal
justice
function
trial
judge
whenever
two
defendants
jointly
charged
whose
cases
consolidated
represented
attorney
trial
judge
inquire
potential
conflicts
may
jeopardize
right
defendant
fidelity
counsel
indication
record
state
suggest
hearing
held
response
motion
august
disclosed
information
demonstrating
insubstantiality
hall
september
representations
based
nearly
ascertained
codefendants
newly
formed
decision
testify
respecting
probable
conflict
interests
far
tell
record
trial
judge
cut
opportunity
defense
counsel
make
conclusory
representations
oral
argument
hall
represented
trial
request
disclose
basis
representations
conflict
interests
see
tr
oral
arg
occasion
case
determine
constitutional
significance
trial
response
petitioners
midtrial
objections
american
bar
association
standards
relating
administration
criminal
justice
defense
function
cautions
except
preliminary
matters
initial
hearing
applications
bail
lawyer
lawyers
associated
practice
undertake
defend
one
defendant
criminal
case
duty
one
defendants
may
conflict
duty
another
potential
conflict
interest
representing
multiple
defendants
grave
ordinarily
lawyer
decline
act
one
several
except
unusual
situations
careful
investigation
clear
conflict
likely
develop
several
defendants
give
informed
consent
multiple
representation
considered
representation
regarding
conflict
clients
interests
comes
officer
given
weight
commensurate
grave
penalties
risked
misrepresentation
risks
undoubtedly
present
inherent
adversary
system
courts
abundant
power
deal
attorneys
misrepresent
facts
case
require
inquiry
extent
power
compel
attorney
disclose
confidential
communications
concludes
damaging
client
cf
aba
code
professional
responsibility
dr
compelled
disclosure
creates
significant
risks
unfair
prejudice
especially
disclosure
judge
may
called
upon
later
impose
sentences
attorney
clients
justice
powell
justice
blackmun
justice
rehnquist
join
dissenting
disavowing
per
se
rule
separate
representation
holds
today
trial
judge
failure
case
either
appoint
separate
counsel
take
adequate
steps
ascertain
whether
risk
remote
warrant
separate
counsel
worked
violation
guarantee
assistance
counsel
embodied
sixth
fourteenth
amendments
accepts
defense
counsel
representations
possible
conflict
interests
among
clients
inability
conduct
effective
adequate
trigger
trial
duty
inquiry
trial
held
appropriate
hearing
defense
counsel
motions
separate
representation
task
decide
whether
omission
assumes
proportion
constitutional
violation
agree
particular
circumstances
case
failure
inquire
requires
reversal
petitioners
convictions
opinion
contains
seeds
per
se
rule
separate
representation
merely
upon
demand
defense
counsel
respectfully
dissent
useful
contrast
today
decision
relevant
previous
ruling
glasser
case
trial
ordered
glasser
retained
lawyer
stewart
represent
glasser
codefendant
kretske
even
though
stewart
identified
inconsistency
defense
counseled
joint
representation
reversed
glasser
conviction
lawyer
required
undertake
simultaneous
representation
conflicting
interests
glasser
decision
rest
determination
possibility
inconsistent
interests
glasser
kretske
brought
home
instead
proceeded
find
record
support
glasser
claim
impairment
sixth
amendment
right
assistance
counsel
evidence
indicative
stewart
struggle
serve
two
masters
seriously
doubted
see
also
today
decision
goes
well
beyond
limits
glasser
agree
representations
made
defense
counsel
case
informative
affidavit
counsel
stewart
glasser
sufficient
bring
play
trial
duty
inquire
possibility
conflicting
interests
question
however
whether
constitution
violated
simply
failure
conduct
inquiry
without
additional
determination
record
reveals
case
joint
representation
face
conflicting
interests
approach
case
premised
ultimate
finding
conflict
interest
ineffective
assistance
counsel
rather
presumes
prejudice
failure
conduct
inquiry
equating
failure
violation
sixth
amendment
guarantee
justification
approach
appears
difficulty
post
hoc
reconstruction
record
determine
whether
different
outcome
even
different
defense
strategy
might
obtained
trial
engaged
requisite
inquiry
ordered
separate
representation
although
difficulty
may
taken
account
allocation
burden
persuasion
questions
conflict
prejudice
see
infra
convinced
need
prophylactic
gloss
requirements
constitution
area
criminal
law
cf
miranda
arizona
several
aspects
opinion
suggest
rule
separate
representation
upon
demand
defense
counsel
leaves
little
room
maneuver
trial
judge
seeks
inquire
substantiality
defense
counsel
representations
apparently
trial
judge
must
order
separate
representation
unless
asserted
risk
conflict
remote
warrant
separate
counsel
ante
formulation
suggests
minimal
showing
part
defense
counsel
also
offers
view
defense
counsel
case
expected
make
kind
specific
proffer
present
glasser
risk
violating
disclosure
duty
confidentiality
clients
ante
although
concededly
necessary
decision
case
trial
inquiry
must
conducted
without
improperly
requiring
disclosure
confidential
communications
client
ante
intimations
coupled
policy
automatic
reversal
see
ante
path
may
cleared
potentially
disruptive
demands
separate
counsel
predicated
solely
representations
defense
counsel
ii
recognition
limits
role
adding
protective
layers
requirements
constitution
detract
sixth
amendment
obligation
provide
separate
counsel
upon
showing
reasonable
probability
need
view
proper
accommodation
interests
defendants
securing
effective
assistance
counsel
state
avoiding
delay
potential
disruption
costs
inherent
appointment
multiple
counsel
achieved
means
sweep
less
broadly
approach
taken
follow
lead
several
courts
appeals
recognized
trial
duty
inquiry
cases
without
minimizing
constitutional
predicate
conflicting
interests
ordinarily
defense
counsel
obligation
raise
objections
joint
representation
early
possible
commencement
trial
motion
made
supported
satisfactory
proffer
trial
duty
conduct
careful
inquiry
satisfy
conflict
interest
likely
result
parties
involved
valid
objection
deberry
hearing
burden
defense
counsel
clients
possession
relevant
facts
make
showing
reasonable
likelihood
conflict
prejudice
upon
showing
separate
counsel
appointed
carried
duty
inquiry
extent
defendant
later
attacks
conviction
grounds
conflict
interest
arising
joint
representation
bear
heavy
burden
indeed
persuading
reviewing
reason
deprived
fair
trial
foster
however
proper
timely
motion
made
hearing
held
lack
satisfactory
judicial
inquiry
shifts
burden
proof
question
prejudice
government
carrigan
since
trial
judge
case
failed
inquire
substantiality
defense
counsel
representations
september
ante
burden
shifted
state
establish
improbability
conflict
prejudice
agree
state
burden
met
simply
assertion
defenses
petitioners
mutually
inconsistent
infrequent
consequence
improper
joint
representation
nevertheless
record
must
offer
basis
reasonable
inference
conflicting
interests
hampered
potentially
effective
defense
see
donahue
state
demonstrated
basis
found
record
case
affirm
judgment
arkansas
propose
resolve
tension
assertion
constitutional
right
claim
privilege
reject
assumption
defense
counsel
unable
discuss
concrete
terms
difficulties
joint
representation
particular
case
without
betraying
confidential
communications
persuaded
courts
unable
pursue
meaningful
inquiry
without
insisting
breach
confidentiality
experience
somewhat
analogous
area
claims
exemption
disclosure
requirements
freedom
information
act
ed
supports
point
see
epa
mink
vaughn
rosen
app
cert
denied
addition
lawyer
trial
multiple
defendants
presents
increased
opportunities
delay
setting
trial
date
disposing
pretrial
motions
selecting
jury
conduct
trial
additional
lawyers
also
may
tend
enhance
possibility
trial
errors
moreover
light
professional
canons
ethics
cf
aba
code
professional
responsibility
dr
allen
district
tr
oral
arg
rule
requiring
separate
counsel
virtually
upon
demand
may
disrupt
operation
public
defender
offices
see
carrigan
mere
representation
two
defendants
single
attorney
automatically
give
rise
constitutional
deprivation
counsel
settled
circuit
specific
instance
prejudice
real
conflict
interest
resulting
joint
representation
must
shown
exist
said
appellant
denied
effective
assistance
counsel
mari
vowteras
cir
cert
denied
wisniewski
cir
lovano
cir
cert
denied
cases
trial
carefully
inquired
possibility
prejudice
elicited
personal
responses
defendants
involved
record
barren
inquiry
concern
government
deberry
supra
noted
approval
view
first
circuit
foster
cir
lack
satisfactory
judicial
inquiry
shifts
burden
proof
question
prejudice
government
since
proper
timely
objection
interposed
case
occasion
identify
circumstances
might
trigger
duty
inquiry
absence
motion
course
later
motion
may
appropriate
conflict
known
become
apparent
trial
proceeds
guard
strategic
disruption
trial
however
may
require
substantial
showing
justification
midtrial
motions
unlikely
separate
counsel
able
develop
independent
defense
case
degree
overlap
identification
testimony
state
witnesses
consistency
alibis
advanced
petitioners
campbell
welch
half
brothers
used
alibi
since
campbell
identified
actual
participant
rapes
might
argued
separate
counsel
encouraged
endorse
earlier
confession
effort
show
less
culpable
two
codefendants
given
common
alibi
welch
campbell
found
difficult
extricate
half
brother
cause
event
argument
appeal
jury
nullification
noted
campbell
denial
direct
involvement
rapes
effect
guilt
principal
ark
conceivably
holloway
gave
independent
alibi
might
wished
argue
state
apprehended
two
real
culprits
arrest
due
mistaken
identification
unlikely
separate
counsel
succeeded
tack
witness
identified
holloway
also
identified
one
two
codefendants
moreover
petitioners
argue
joint
representation
impeded
effective
state
witnesses
sum
case
inquiry
possibility
conflicting
interests
reasonably
might
revealed
basis
separate
representation