U.S. v. Salinas, 79-3376
| Citation | 618 F.2d 1092 |
| Decision Date | 29 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-3376,79-3376 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Rodriguez SALINAS and Jose Luis Maldonado, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Samuel H. Bayless (Court-appointed), San Antonio, Tex., for Salinas.
Terrence W. McDonald, (Court-appointed), San Antonio, Tex., for Maldonado.
Le Roy Morgan Jahn, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., Vincent F. O'Rourke, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Drew S. Days, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jessica Dunsay Silver, Deputy Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Appellate Section, Civil Rights Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Before SIMPSON, HILL and HATCHETT, Circuit Judges.
This case raises the issue of whether a trial judge may disqualify a retained attorney, in a criminal case, where the judge believes that the attorney is the "target" of an investigation concerning the event or events for which his clients were indicted. We affirm the trial judge's order of disqualification.
The right of defendants in criminal cases to retain an attorney of their choice does not outweigh the countervailing public interest in the fair and orderly administration of justice. United States v. Kitchin, 592 F.2d 900 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 100 S.Ct. 86, 62 L.Ed.2d 56 (1979); Gandy v. Alabama, 569 F.2d 1318 (5th Cir. 1978).
Authority clearly supports the right of a trial judge to regulate the conduct of attorneys during the course of a case. United States v. Kitchin; United States v. Dinitz, 538 F.2d 1214 (5th Cir. 1976) (en banc), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1104, 97 S.Ct. 1133, 51 L.Ed.2d 556 (1977).
Our standard of review is whether the trial judge abused his discretion. In re Gopman, 531 F.2d 262 (5th Cir. 1976). We agree that the trial Id., at 266.
After reviewing the record in this case, we find that the trial judge acted within the bounds of his discretion in disqualifying the appellants' attorney.
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial judge.
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bundy v. State, 57772
...counsel when there is a "countervailing public interest in the fair and orderly administration of justice." United States v. Salinas, 618 F.2d 1092, 1093 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 961, 101 S.Ct. 374, 66 L.Ed.2d 228 (1980). The state argues that the trial judge did not abuse his dis......
-
U.S.A v. Crawford
... ... thus actual conflict existed); see also ... United States v. Salinas, 618 F.2d 1092, ... 1093 (5th Cir.) (trial judge was within ... discretion in disqualifying ... ...
-
Government of Virgin Islands v. Zepp
...pursued his client's best interest entirely free from the influence of his concern to avoid his own incrimination. United States v. Salinas, 618 F.2d 1092 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 961, 101 S.Ct. 374, 66 L.Ed.2d 228 (1980); In Re Investigation Before February, 1977, Lynchburg Grand......
-
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Indus. Organizations v. Donovan, 84-5072
... ... ----, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 2782, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). As Chevron teaches us, "[s]uch legislative regulations are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, ... ...
-
Conflicts of interest in criminal cases: should the prosecution have a duty to disclose?
...F.3d 807, 812 (2d Cir. 2002) (noting that counsel was investigated for four years but never charged). But see United States v. Salinas, 618 F.2d 1092, 1093 (5th Cir. 1980) (holding trial court could properly disqualify counsel where judge "believe[d]" counsel was target of criminal investig......