Summary:       The Government moved for a Rule 44(c) inquiry into joint representation, contending that defense counsel’s dual representation of the co-defendants created a significant risk of a conflict of interest. Subsequently, the corporate co-defendant retained separate counsel, transforming the issue from one involving dual representation to one involving successive representation. The Court found that the defendants were fully apprised of the potential for a conflict of interest and their right to effective assistance of counsel; the defendants and their counsel had the opportunity to identify and address potential conflicts of interest; and the defendants expressed the desire to be represented by their attorneys of choice. The Court found that the defendants voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly waived their Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of conflict-free counsel.

 

Case Name: USA v. Micheal L. Fisher, Arniel Schaff, Fisher Sand and Gravel Co., Inc.

Case Number: 1-08-cr-26

Docket Number: 49

Date Filed: 7/9/08

Nature of Suit:

click here to load this opinion (PDF file) 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA

SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION
 

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

-vs-

Micheal L. Fisher, Amiel Schaff, and Fisher Sand and Gravel Co., Inc.,

Defendants.

 )
) ORDER ON RULE 44(c) INQUIRY
)
)
) Case No. 1:08-cr-26
)
)
)
)
)

click here to load this opinion (PDF file)