U.S. v. Tosh

Citation733 F.2d 422
Decision Date03 May 1984
Docket NumberNo. 83-5469,83-5469
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry TOSH, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

Sheldon Yavitz, Miami, Fla., for defendant-appellant.

Ronald E. Meredith, U.S. Atty., Alexander T. Taft, Jr., First Asst. U.S. Atty., Louisville, Ky., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before MERRITT and KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judges, and WEICK, Senior Circuit Judge.

KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judge.

Defendant-Appellant, Jerry Tosh, appealed the order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky disqualifying his attorney, Sheldon Yavitz, pursuant to a motion to prohibit multiple representation initiated by the United States pursuant to Rule 44(c) Fed.R.Crim.Pro. As more fully discussed below, however, appellant's appeal from the district court order must be dismissed for the reason that a pretrial disqualification of defense counsel in a criminal prosecution is not immediately appealable as a final order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291.

The pertinent facts reveal that a multi-count grand jury indictment charging thirty (30) defendants with conspiracy to distribute marijuana and cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. Secs. 841(a)(1) and 846 and Title 18, Sec. 2 and related narcotics possession charges was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky on April 27, 1982.

Attorney Yavitz was retained by defendant Robert Lyon and appellant Tosh to represent them in the case. Yavitz appeared at their arraignment and retained local counsel to assist in the defense of both Lyon and Tosh. Lyon was charged in the first count with conspiracy to distribute marijuana and cocaine, in count 5 with possession of marijuana, and in count 6 with possession of cocaine. Appellant Tosh was charged in the first count with conspiracy to distribute marijuana and in count 4 with distribution of 148 pounds of marijuana and 1/4 ounce of cocaine.

On motion of the Assistant United States Attorney, the district court conducted a hearing pursuant to Rule 44(c) Fed.R.Crim.Pro. to determine whether the multiple representation of any of the defendants presented a possible conflict of interest. During the hearing, appellant informed the district court that he would not waive any possible claim of conflict of interest arising from attorney Yavitz's multiple representation of Lyon and himself and, furthermore, that he did not wish to have Yavitz represent him in further proceedings.

Consequently, the district court relieved attorney Yavitz from further representation of Tosh in the criminal proceeding. Although Tosh subsequently sought a rehearing of the district court's decision to disqualify Yavitz as his counsel the district court denied appellant's motion for a rehearing and the present appeal ensued.

On appeal, appellant cites the recent Sixth Circuit case of United States v. Phillips, 699 F.2d 798 (6th Cir.1983), for the proposition that an order granting the governments pretrial motion to disqualify counsel in a criminal case is immediately appealable pursuant to Sec. 1291. In Phillips this circuit held that the pretrial disqualification of counsel constituted a collateral order sufficient to except it from the final judgment rule set forth in Sec. 1291. Id. at 800. Citing Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978), the court in Phillips noted:

"This decision appears to fall in that small class which finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • U.S. v. Lewis
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • March 22, 1985
    ...arbitrarily deny a non-indigent chosen counsel); United States v. Phillips, 699 F.2d 798, 801 (6th Cir.), overruled on other grounds; 733 F.2d 422 (1983) (right to chosen counsel for solvent defendants not absolute, but is an "essential component" of the sixth amendment); United States v. D......
  • Wilson v. Mintzes
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • June 17, 1985
    ...as well as sixth amendment); United States v. Phillips, 699 F.2d 798, 801 (6th Cir.1983), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Tosh, 733 F.2d 422 (6th Cir.1984) ("The Sixth Amendment right to counsel includes the right of a defendant in a criminal case to be represented by counsel o......
  • U.S. v. Washington
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • February 11, 1986
    ...the disqualification. See United States v. Phillips, 699 F.2d 798, 801-02 (6th Cir.1983), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Tosh, 733 F.2d 422 (6th Cir.1984). The question presented by Judge Orrick's ruling is whether Washington's employment of former Strike Force lawyers created......
  • U.S. v. Washington
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • August 20, 1986
    ...the disqualification. See United States v. Phillips, 699 F.2d 798, 801-02 (6th Cir.1983), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Tosh, 733 F.2d 422 (6th Cir.1984). who, if anyone ... is not telling the truth."    Relying ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Review Proceedings
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...v. Whittaker, 268 F.3d 185, 192 (3d Cir. 2001) (pretrial disqualif‌ication of defense counsel not immediately appealable); U.S. v. Tosh, 733 F.2d 422, 422 (6th Cir. 1984) (disqualif‌ication of counsel not immediately appealable); U.S. v. Tillman, 756 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir. 2014) (same); ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT