Memorandum

Memorandum

From:

Date:

Issue

In this case John and David are charged with the robbery and they both owns similar defense - common alibi - established by the witnesses. In this scenario a joint defense representation by a single attorney is the best option. The attorney starts preparing for the case on the assumption that either the both defendants will be convicted it both will be acquitted. This assumption gives a way to the conflict of interest.

Rule

In the criminal justice system, conflict of interest due to the multiple representations by a single attorney in criminal cases places heavy burden on every participant. Here the conflict is defined as any difference in the positions of defendants which may influence the counsel in selecting to represent the either of the defendant. It has held by the United States Supreme Court that criminal defendants have the right to attain effective assistance counsel, “The right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel” Sixth Amendment (Amendment VI) to the United States Constitution. The court has also held that this right to effective counsel may be denied if the attorney or the counsel has conflict of interest caused due to the representations of the codefendants.

The supreme court, although, in Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (1978) refused to hold the unconstitutional status of joint representation, it also approved the Proposed Rule of Criminal Procedure 44(c), in which trial courts are required to protect the rights of defendants in such situations. The reason behind the conflict of interest is that one defendant accuses the other, the culpability of one defendant is more than that of the other or the defense of one defendant is inconsistent in comparison to the other. Owing to this fact it can be said that when a single attorney represent multiple defendants, rise of conflict of interest is not a strange situation.

Such cases in which the conflict of interest rose can be cited to support the case of John and David. United States v. Garafola, 428 F. Supp. 620 (D.N.J.1977), affd sub nom. United States v. Dolan, 570 F.2d 1177 (3d Cir. 1978) is an example of such case. In the case of Garafola, two defendants, Garafola nd Doaln were represented by one attorney. Garafola, before trial, pleaded guilty and at two hearings it was stated by the counsel and defendants that there was no conflict of interest. Dolan ...