U.S. v. Wright

In prosecution on drug conspiracy and drug distribution charges, defendant was not entitled to new trial, even though defendant argued that she labored under conflict of interest with her trial attorney. While defendant’s counsel stated during opening statement that third-party would testify that he never saw defendant in possession of large quantity of drugs, government alerted Dist. Ct. on second day of trial that it would not call third-party as witness because third-party had recently claimed that defendant’s counsel had a discussion with third-party months earlier and accused third-party of lying to grand jury and encouraging third-party to change his testimony. During discussion with defendant’s counsel and Dist. Ct., defendant’s counsel denied third-party’s claim and stated that he would not call third-party as witness because he had no idea what third-party would say. Ct. of Appeals found that no actual conflict of interest existed, where it was in the interest of both defendant and defendant’s counsel to not have third-party testify, since third party posed as risky witness given his recent claim that defense counsel had urged him to change his testimony.