United States v. Stepney
2003 WL 462829, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2559, 246 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court, under its supervisory powers to ensure a fair trial and prevent conflicts of interest, may require co-defendants' joint defense agreements to be in writing and submitted for review. The court may also require that such agreements explicitly disclaim the creation of a general duty of loyalty and include a conditional waiver of confidentiality allowing for the cross-examination of any signatory who later testifies.
Facts:
- Nearly thirty defendants were charged in a series of indictments for participation in the criminal enterprises of a street gang in San Francisco's Hunter's Point area.
- The charges involved over seventy substantive counts relating to gang operations spanning several years, making the case factually complex.
- To coordinate their defense, various defense counsel sought to enter into joint defense agreements to share factual investigations and legal work product.
- During the case, one defendant's attorney believed he had entered a joint defense agreement with another defendant who he later discovered was cooperating with the prosecution.
- The attorney believed the agreement created a duty of loyalty that would prevent him from cross-examining the cooperating defendant at trial.
- A significant number of defendants in the case ultimately entered guilty pleas and began cooperating with the government.
- The defendants' interests were not cohesive, as evidenced by the fact that one cooperating defendant was murdered and another received threats.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States government charged nearly thirty defendants in a multi-count indictment in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
- At an initial appearance, the trial court ordered that any joint defense agreements be put in writing and submitted for in camera review.
- More than a year later, counsel for one defendant filed a motion to withdraw, citing a conflict of interest arising from a joint defense agreement with a co-defendant who had begun cooperating with the government.
- The court denied the motion to withdraw after the cooperating defendant waived any attorney-client privilege.
- The court subsequently issued an order setting forth new requirements for any future joint defense agreements in the case.
- Pursuant to the court's order, defense counsel submitted proposed joint defense agreements to the court for in camera review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court, under its inherent supervisory powers, have the authority to impose specific requirements on joint defense agreements in a multi-defendant criminal case, such as mandating they be in writing, disclaim a duty of loyalty, and include a conditional waiver of confidentiality for testifying co-defendants?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Patel
Yes. A trial court has the authority under its supervisory powers to impose specific requirements on joint defense agreements to protect defendants' Sixth Amendment rights and ensure the integrity of the proceedings. The court reasoned that its supervisory powers allow it to take preemptive steps to avoid conflicts of interest. The court found that joint defense agreements, while extending the attorney-client privilege for confidentiality, do not create a broad attorney-client relationship or a general duty of loyalty between one defendant's attorney and all other signatories. Imposing such a duty, as proposed by the defendants, would create a 'minefield of potential conflicts' and would likely require mass disqualification of counsel if any signatory decided to cooperate and testify. Citing precedent like Abraham Construction, the court emphasized that conflicts from JDAs arise only when an attorney actually possesses relevant confidential information that impairs their ability to represent their client, not from a general duty of loyalty. Therefore, to manage these risks, the court can mandate that agreements disclaim a duty of loyalty and include a conditional waiver of confidentiality, permitting attorneys to use shared information to cross-examine a co-defendant who chooses to testify.
Analysis:
This order clarifies the judicial power to regulate joint defense agreements (JDAs) in complex, multi-defendant criminal cases. It firmly establishes that the joint defense privilege is a limited extension of confidentiality, not a mechanism for creating a full-blown attorney-client relationship or a duty of loyalty among co-defendants and their counsel. The decision provides a practical framework for trial courts to proactively prevent the strategic use of JDAs to create conflicts and force disqualifications, particularly when co-defendants begin cooperating with the government. By mandating specific terms like written form, loyalty disclaimers, and conditional confidentiality waivers, the ruling strengthens a court's ability to manage case integrity while still allowing defendants to benefit from coordinated defense efforts.
