Wheat v. United States
486 U.S. 153 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court has substantial latitude to refuse a defendant's waiver of a conflict of interest and disqualify their chosen counsel not only when an actual conflict is shown, but also when there is a serious potential for conflict.
Facts:
- Mark Wheat was charged with participating in a large-scale marijuana distribution conspiracy.
- Attorney Eugene Iredale represented two other charged co-conspirators, Juvenal Gomez-Barajas and Javier Bravo.
- Iredale had secured an acquittal for Gomez-Barajas on overlapping drug charges, and Gomez-Barajas had a pending, unaccepted plea deal on lesser charges.
- Iredale also represented Bravo, who had pleaded guilty to a lesser charge.
- Just before his trial, Wheat sought to substitute his current counsel with Iredale.
- The government stated its intention to call Bravo as a witness against Wheat, which would create a conflict for Iredale in cross-examining one client on behalf of another.
- The government also noted a potential conflict regarding Gomez-Barajas, whose plea deal was not yet final; if the deal were rejected, Wheat might be called to testify at a future trial for Gomez-Barajas.
- Wheat, Gomez-Barajas, and Bravo all expressed their willingness to waive any conflict of interest.
Procedural Posture:
- Mark Wheat was charged in U.S. District Court with conspiracy to possess and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
- Shortly before trial, Wheat moved to substitute his counsel with attorney Eugene Iredale.
- The Government objected to the motion, alleging a serious conflict of interest due to Iredale's representation of two co-defendants.
- The District Court (trial court) denied Wheat’s motion, finding an irreconcilable conflict of interest.
- Wheat was tried with his original counsel, convicted by a jury, and sentenced.
- Wheat (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the substitution.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's decision.
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 district court violate a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice by denying the defendant's waiver of his counsel's conflict of interest and refusing to allow representation by that counsel?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No. A district court's refusal to permit the substitution of counsel was within its discretion and did not violate the petitioner’s Sixth Amendment rights. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice is qualified and not absolute; its essential purpose is to guarantee an effective advocate, not necessarily the defendant's preferred lawyer. Federal courts have an independent interest in ensuring that criminal trials are conducted fairly and within professional ethical standards. While there is a presumption in favor of a defendant's chosen counsel, that presumption may be overcome not only by a demonstration of an actual conflict of interest but also by a showing of a serious potential for conflict. Because trial courts must evaluate these potential conflicts before trial, when the full extent of the conflict is often unclear, they must be given substantial latitude in making such decisions to avoid subsequent claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes. The district court violated petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to choose his own counsel. The majority grants unwarranted deference to the trial court's decision, which should be subject to close scrutiny on appeal as it involves a constitutional right. The government failed to show that the likelihood and dimensions of the feared conflicts were substantial enough to overcome the strong presumption in favor of the defendant's counsel of choice. The potential conflicts involving Gomez-Barajas and Bravo were based on highly dubious speculation and remote possibilities, suggesting the government may have manufactured the conflict to disqualify a formidable defense attorney. A less restrictive alternative, such as allowing Iredale to join the defense team with an order not to cross-examine Bravo, would have protected petitioner's rights.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes. The district court abused its discretion and deprived the petitioner of a fundamental constitutional right. The majority exaggerates the significance of the potential conflict and gives inadequate weight to the informed and voluntary waivers by all clients. Critically, Wheat sought to have Iredale as additional counsel, not as a complete substitute. His original counsel would have remained available to provide conflict-free advice and handle any parts of the defense where Iredale's conflict might arise, making the district court's complete denial of his choice unreasonable.
Analysis:
This case significantly qualifies the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice, establishing that it is not absolute. It prioritizes the institutional interest in the integrity and fairness of the judicial process over a defendant's individual preference, even when supported by a waiver. By allowing trial courts to disqualify counsel based on a 'serious potential for conflict,' the decision grants judges considerable discretion to manage attorney conflicts preemptively. This precedent impacts future cases by empowering courts to reject waivers they deem insufficient to protect the trial's fairness, while also creating a risk, as the dissent notes, that prosecutors could strategically 'manufacture' conflicts to disqualify effective defense attorneys.
