U.S. v. Auerbach

Decision Date01 October 1984
Docket NumberNo. 84-1160,84-1160
Citation745 F.2d 1157
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Wilbur Lee AUERBACH, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Philip F. Miller, Des Moines, Iowa (Amy Christensen Couch, Des Moines, Iowa, on the brief), for appellee.

Richard C. Turner, U.S. Atty., S.D. Iowa, Des Moines, Iowa, Robert J. Erickson, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the U.S.

Before ARNOLD and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges, and DUMBAULD, * District Judge.

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.

Wilbur Auerbach was convicted with his son, Thomas Auerbach, of dealing in firearms without being properly licensed in violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 922(a)(1) and 924 (1982), and conspiracy to commit those offenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371 (1982). They were represented by the same lawyer at the trial. After an unsuccessful appeal on other grounds, the district court 1 sustained Wilbur's motion to vacate and set aside his conviction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 (1982) because of his lack of effective assistance of counsel stemming from the conflict of interest of his attorney. The government appeals, arguing that the district court applied an improper legal standard in reaching its conclusions and that no actual conflict of interest was established. We affirm the judgment of the district court.

Wilbur and Thomas Auerbach were indicted as the result of the sale of several firearms at a service station Wilbur Auerbach owned in Atlantic, Iowa. The evidence demonstrated that both Wilbur and Thomas were involved in these transactions. Thomas, who had earlier been convicted of a felony, was charged with two counts of possessing firearms as a previously convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. App. Sec. 1202(a)(1) (1982). Wilbur and Thomas were jointly charged with dealing in firearms without being properly licensed in violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 922(a)(1) and 924 and with conspiracy to commit the substantive offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371.

Wilbur hired a lawyer to represent both him and Thomas in the joint trial, at which the two presented a unified defense. Both were convicted; Wilbur's conviction was affirmed on appeal. United States v. Auerbach, 682 F.2d 735 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 911, 103 S.Ct. 219, 74 L.Ed.2d 174 (1982). We need not repeat our detailed discussion in our earlier opinion of the facts concerning the offenses other than as necessary for resolution of the issues presented. We do find it significant that at no time during the trial or appeal did Wilbur Auerbach raise the question of inadequacy of counsel or conflict of interest and that at no time before or during the trial did the district court make the inquiry regarding joint representation required by Fed.R.Crim.P. 44(c). 2

Following his unsuccessful appeal, Wilbur Auerbach filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The district court found that three of the grounds in the motion, preindictment delay, entrapment, and inflammatory statements during closing argument, were raised at trial and on direct appeal and could not be reconsidered in a habeas corpus action. The other ground, ineffective assistance of counsel because of conflict of interest, was considered by the court. After acknowledging that the requirement of Rule 44(c) had not been followed, the district court discussed United States v. Lawriw, 568 F.2d 98 (8th Cir.1977), cert. denied 435 U.S. 969, 98 S.Ct. 1607, 56 L.Ed.2d 60 (1978). In Lawriw we had imposed the inquiry requirement later incorporated in Rule 44(c). The district court quoted both the Lawriw holding that "only a minimal showing of conflict should be required to invoke constitutional protection," and its later statement regarding "the minimal showing needed to establish the substantial possibility of a conflict of interest." 568 F.2d at 101-02, 105. The court then stated:

The minimal showing has been made. My observation of the five day trial leads me to believe that prosecution evidence against Thomas Auerbach and evidence offered in defense of Thomas Auerbach tended to harm Wilbur Auerbach. This evidence, including Thomas Auerbach's prior felony conviction, and the prosecutor's improper repeated questions about why Thomas Auerbach was in the penitentiary * * * would not have been presented in a separate trial of Wilbur Auerbach. The harm to Wilbur Auerbach was compounded by the appearance of unity generated by the father-son relationship and the fact that they were represented by the same lawyer.

If Wilbur Auerbach had had his own lawyer, he surely would have moved for a separate trial. Perhaps such a motion would not have been granted, but I believe it might have been granted if capably presented by independent counsel. The father-son relationship coupled with the son's past record would have made a motion for severance far more compelling than in the usual case of unrelated codefendants. Independent counsel for Wilbur Auerbach would have been free to fully demonstrate how his client would be harmed by a joint trial with his son. (It is true that Mr. Rodenberg could have moved for separate trials for his two clients, but his representation of Thomas would have precluded him from making a full demonstration to the court of the problems a joint trial would hold for Wilbur.)

Even if the court had rejected a motion by independent counsel for a separate trial, independent counsel in a joint trial could have reduced the unity problem that harmed Wilbur--he could have more effectively put distance between Wilbur and Thomas.

The joint trial with joint counsel may not have hurt Thomas, but it did hurt Wilbur. The minimal showing has been made, and defendant Wilbur Auerbach is entitled to the relief he seeks.

The judgments of conviction and sentences imposed on Wilbur were vacated and set aside, and he was granted a new trial.

The United States appeals and argues that the district court required only a minimal showing of a possible conflict, thereby failing to reach and impose the stricter "actual conflict" standard of Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 348, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 1718, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980). It also argues that there was no showing of actual conflict of interest in the joint representation of the father and son.

At the outset, we note that Auerbach potentially faced a serious problem in his attempt to bring a collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 for a constitutional claim of ineffective assistance of counsel despite his failure to raise the issue on appeal. Should the "cause and actual prejudice" standard of United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982), have been applied, a far different case would have been before us. See Norris v. United States, 687 F.2d 899 (7th Cir.1982). However, the issue was not raised in the district court. We will adhere to the principle that it is generally inappropriate to reverse upon a ground not so submitted. Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 2877, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976); Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 933, 936 (5th Cir.1976); United States v. Hudspeth, 384 F.2d 683, 687 (9th Cir.1967).

We first consider the argument of the United States that the district court applied an improper standard in requiring only a minimal showing of possible conflict of interest. Cuyler requires that "in order to establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment, a defendant who raised his objection at trial must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance." 446 U.S. at 348, 100 S.Ct. at 1718. However, Cuyler, following Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942), and refusing "to indulge in nice calculations as to the amount of prejudice" attributable to the conflict, also states that the simple presence of actual conflict itself will demonstrate a denial of the right. 446 U.S. at 349-50, 100 S.Ct. at 1718-19. Thus, the provision of Lawriw that "only a minimal showing of conflict should be required to invoke constitutional protection" is thoroughly consonant with Cuyler. Lawriw, 568 F.2d at 101-02.

The district court cited the above language from Lawriw in its order. It is true that the district court also cited the statement in Lawriw regarding a "minimal showing needed to establish the substantial possibility of a conflict of interest." 568 F.2d at 105. But while the Lawriw court in this second passage refers to "substantial possibility," we think the opinion unequivocally in its earlier statement requires a showing of conflict, rather than a possibility of conflict, to invoke constitutional protection. Constitutionally, such is the requirement after Cuyler. We believe a fair reading of the district court's order (which cites Cuyler in addition to Lawriw ) demonstrates that a standard requiring a minimal showing of actual conflict was applied.

The district court presided at the trial and based its discussion in the memorandum opinion upon facts observed during the course of that trial. We will affirm a district court's finding that a habeas petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel where the district court's findings of fact which support the conclusion of law are not clearly erroneous. Hawkman v. Parratt, 661 F.2d 1161, 1165 (8th Cir.1981); Morrow v. Parratt, 574 F.2d 411, 414 (8th Cir.1978). A consideration of the record in this case so supports the findings of the district court. 3

At the heart of the conflict lies the earlier conviction of Thomas which opened up additional areas of evidence involving Thomas and led to cross-examination and closing argument dealing with the conviction. In a situation in which, as the district court properly observed, the father-son relationship coupled with the son's past record would have made a motion for severance far more compelling than in the usual case of unrelated co-defenda...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • U.S. v. Kole
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • December 29, 1998
    ...fiance. However, "hindsight rationalization alone cannot support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel." United States v. Auerbach, 745 F.2d 1157, 1162 (8th Cir.1984). In Auerbach, the court held that joint representation of a father and son charged with various firearms offenses res......
  • St. Cloud v. Leapley, 18332
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • August 31, 1994
    ...Butcher v. Marquez, 758 F.2d 373, 376 (9th Cir.1985); Meeks v. Bergen, 749 F.2d 322, 327 (6th Cir.1984); United States v. Auerbach, 745 F.2d 1157, 1161 (8th Cir.1984); Hayes v. Maggio, 699 F.2d 198, 201 (5th Cir.1983)). Further, the Aliberti court Although the lower court's findings of fact......
  • Widgery v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • July 7, 1986
    ...a determination of whether the Frady standard applies if defendant fails to raise an issue on direct appeal); United States v. Auerbach, 745 F.2d 1157, 1160 (8th Cir.1984) (issue of whether cause and prejudice standard should apply if defendant fails to raise issue on direct appeal will not......
  • Lee v. Clarke
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska
    • November 10, 1992
    ...assistance of counsel is a mixed question of law and fact. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 698, 104 S.Ct. at 2070; United States v. Auerbach, 745 F.2d 1157, 1161 n. 3 (8th Cir.1984). Thus, although the ultimate question of whether a habeas petitioner received effective assistance of counsel is a qu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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