U.S. v. Bell

Dist. Ct. did not err in accepting defendant’s waiver of conflict-free counsel in trial on wire fraud charges stemming from scheme to induce homeowners facing foreclosure to pay defendant fee under circumstances where defendant falsely told said homeowners that his company would purchase their mortgages and prevent their foreclosures. Defendant, who was unrepresented until eve of trial, told Dist. Ct. that he met his trial counsel at behest of co-defendant’s trial counsel. Dist. Ct. thereafter obtained conflict attorney from Federal Public Defender’s Office to discuss situation with defendant and co-defendant, and conflict attorney advised defendant of potential conflict that could arise, that waiving of conflict-free counsel would preclude him from raising said issue during trial or on appeal, and that there were dangers in choosing his inexperienced counsel. After defendant waived conflict-free counsel and proceeded to trial with said counsel, jury found defendant guilty of wire-fraud charges. While defendant argued that Dist. Ct. should not have accepted his waiver of conflict-free counsel, defendant failed to show that there was actual or potential conflict of interest that seriously undermined counsel’s effectiveness, where, as here, defendant failed to provide any particularized evidence to support assertion that his trial counsel subordinated his efforts in defendant’s defense to those of co-defendant. Also, Dist. Ct. ensured that defendant knew his rights concerning having conflict-free counsel, and defendant nevertheless insisted on going to trial with counsel he selected.