Wood et al. v. Georgia
450 U.S. 261 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a court to initiate an inquiry when the record reveals a sufficient possibility of a conflict of interest arising from a third party paying for a criminal defendant's legal representation.
Facts:
- Petitioners Tante, Allen, and Wood were low-level employees at an adult movie theater and an adult bookstore.
- They were arrested and charged with distributing obscene materials in the course of their employment.
- Their employer provided a single lawyer to represent all three of them throughout the legal proceedings.
- The petitioners understood that their employer would pay for their legal fees, post any necessary bonds, and pay any fines imposed upon them.
- The employer did, in fact, pay for their legal counsel and posted bonds to keep them out of jail.
- All three petitioners were convicted and sentenced to substantial fines and probated jail sentences, with probation conditioned on making monthly installment payments towards the fines.
- After the convictions, the employer refused to pay the fines for these specific cases.
- The petitioners were indigent and, without their employer's financial support, were unable to make the required payments.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners Tante, Allen, and Wood were convicted of distributing obscene materials in the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia (a trial court).
- Their convictions were affirmed on appeal by the Georgia Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court).
- The United States Supreme Court denied their petition for a writ of certiorari on the original convictions.
- County probation officers filed motions in the State Court of Fulton County to revoke the petitioners' probations for failure to make installment payments on their fines.
- After a hearing, the trial court revoked their probations and ordered them to serve their prison sentences.
- The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's revocation order.
- The United States Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the probation revocation.
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 the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require a court to inquire into a potential conflict of interest when a criminal defendant is represented by a lawyer hired and paid by the defendant's employer, and the circumstances suggest the lawyer's strategy may be serving the employer's interests over the defendant's?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
Yes. Where the possibility of a conflict of interest is sufficiently apparent, the Due Process Clause imposes a duty upon the court to inquire further. The Court found that the third-party fee arrangement created a potential for divided loyalties. The employer's refusal to pay the fines—while continuing to pay for bonds and legal fees—suggested it might be trying to create a test case on the constitutionality of jailing indigents for nonpayment of fines. This strategic goal could sacrifice the petitioners' immediate interest in avoiding incarceration. The court should have recognized this possibility because it had imposed disproportionately large fines assuming the employer would pay, it knew counsel was provided by the employer, and it saw counsel pressing a novel constitutional claim rather than arguing for leniency. The judgment was vacated and the case remanded for a hearing on whether an actual conflict of interest existed.
Dissenting - Justice White
No. The Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the case on due process/conflict of interest grounds because that issue was never properly raised or decided in the state courts. Furthermore, the record does not support the factual assumption that the employer and counsel colluded to create a test case; more plausible explanations exist for the nonpayment of fines, such as the petitioners no longer working for the employer. Justice White would have decided the question presented in the certiorari petition, concluding that imprisoning petitioners for their inability to pay fines violates the Equal Protection Clause under the precedent of Williams v. Illinois and Tate v. Short.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
Yes. Justice Stevens agreed that the judgment should be vacated due to the potential conflict of interest, but based his reasoning on the unfairness of the sentence itself. He argued that independent counsel would never have allowed a judge to impose fines that were manifestly beyond the petitioners' ability to pay without securing an enforceable commitment from the employer to pay them. The conflict of interest directly resulted in a manifestly unfair sentence for the petitioners.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Brennan
Yes, but the Court should have decided the case on other grounds. While agreeing that a clear possibility of a conflict of interest existed, Justice Brennan would have reversed the judgment based on the Equal Protection holding of Tate v. Short. He also would have reversed the underlying convictions, reiterating his long-held view that statutes criminalizing obscenity are facially unconstitutional.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Stewart
Yes, but the Court should have gone further. Justice Stewart agreed with the remand due to the clear possibility of a conflict of interest. However, like Justice Brennan, he would have also reversed the convictions themselves on the grounds that the Georgia obscenity statute is facially unconstitutional.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that the right to counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments includes the right to conflict-free representation. It extends the trial court's affirmative duty to inquire into potential conflicts, established in cases like Cuyler v. Sullivan, to situations where a third party with its own agenda pays for a defendant's defense. The ruling serves as a significant precedent, cautioning trial judges to be vigilant when a lawyer's strategy appears to prioritize a broad legal principle over the client's immediate liberty interests, particularly in third-party-payer scenarios. It solidifies the idea that this judicial duty to inquire is not limited to trial but extends to other critical stages, such as probation revocation hearings.
Unlock the full brief for Wood et al. v. Georgia