U.S. v. Reese, 82-1623
| Decision Date | 21 January 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-1623,82-1623 |
| Citation | 699 F.2d 803 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alan Wayne REESE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Jeffrey L. Edison (argued), Edison & Lumumba, Detroit, Mich., for defendant-appellant.
Leonard R. Gilman, U.S. Atty., Maura Corrigan, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before LIVELY and KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judges, and CELEBREZZE, Senior Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal by the defendant Reese from an order of the district court granting the government's motion to disqualify Reese's retained counsel. We reverse the order of the district court and remand for further proceedings.
Alan Wayne Reese was jointly indicted with Larry Holyfield and Joseph T. Holyfield for armed bank robbery. The magistrate to whom the case was assigned appointed the federal defender office to represent Reese after he filed an affidavit of indigency. At the time of Reese's arraignment an attorney, Jeffrey L. Edison, appeared with him as retained counsel. The government then filed a motion to disqualify attorney Edison for a conflict of interest. In its motion the government stated its belief that Edison had been retained by Reese's co-defendants or by someone acting on behalf of the Holyfields. Reese's representation by an attorney retained by or on behalf of the co-defendants would present a danger that Reese would not receive representation free of a conflict of interest, according to the government's motion.
Reese filed a response to the motion denying that there was any conflict of interest. In support of his response Reese filed his own affidavit and that of attorney Edison. In his affidavit Reese stated that Edison had not been retained by his co-defendants or by anyone acting in concert with them, that he was satisfied with Mr. Edison's representation and that no actual or potential conflict existed by reason of that representation. In his affidavit attorney Edison stated that he was not retained by Reese's co-defendants or by persons acting in concert with them, that there was no actual or potential conflict of interest in his representation of Reese and that the representation was and would continue to be consistent with the code of professional responsibility.
The district judge to whom the matter was assigned heard statements by the assistant United States attorney and attorney Edison supporting and opposing the motion. Reese was then sworn as a witness and questioned briefly by the judge. Reese responded that he had retained Mr. Edison as his attorney and that the money to pay him came from family and friends. When asked to name these people Reese replied that he could not name all of them. The judge then adjourned the hearing and granted the motion with the following explanation:
THE COURT: All right. The motion to disqualify the retained counsel is granted, and counsel is declared...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. Mintzes
...to counsel includes the right of a defendant in a criminal case to be represented by counsel of his choosing."); United States v. Reese, 699 F.2d 803, 805 (6th Cir.1983); Ross v. Reda, 510 F.2d 1172, 1173 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 892, 96 S.Ct. 190, 46 L.Ed.2d 124 (1975) (right to ......
-
U.S. v. Brock
...Webb adequately waived the conflict, and a court cannot ignore such waivers absent "compelling circumstances." See United States v. Reese, 699 F.2d 803, 805 (6th Cir.1983). One problem with this argument is that Reese's dictum does not account for Wheat's later instruction that appellate co......
-
Lemaster v. Ohio, C-2-99-406.
...interest in the integrity of its proceedings and the public's interest in the proper administration of justice." United States v. Reese, 699 F.2d 803 (6th Cir. 1983); see also Wheat v. United States, supra, 486 U.S. at 157, 108 S.Ct. In the instant case, as noted by the state appellate cour......
-
State ex rel. Blake v. Hatcher, 32747.
...court's interest in the integrity of its proceedings and the public's interest in the proper administration of justice." United States v. Reese, 699 F.2d 803, 805 (1983). See also Cunningham, 672 F.2d at 1070 ("[i]n determining whether the right of the accused to counsel of his own choosing......