United States v. Archie
3:14-cr-00013
D. Nev.Apr 28, 2015Background
- Kyle and Linda Archie were indicted for failure to account for and pay withheld employment taxes; Kyle alleged as "responsible officer," Linda as bookkeeper.
- Each initially retained separate counsel; Robert E. Barnes sought pro hac vice admission to represent Kyle (and later sought to represent Linda), designating local counsel Craig Denny.
- Linda moved to substitute Barnes for her prior counsel; both defendants later moved to substitute Denny as their local counsel and to be jointly represented.
- The government opposed joint representation and moved to determine possible disqualification of Denny because he had represented Reno Rock Transport, LLC (RRT) in earlier proceedings.
- The Court held hearings (including an ex parte canvass of defendants), denied Barnes' pro hac vice admission for Linda, and addressed whether joint representation and any conflict from Denny's former RRT work warranted relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether co-defendants may be jointly represented by the same counsel (Denny/Barnes) | Joint representation risks conflicts because defendants have different roles and may shift blame; government concerned about plea negotiations favoring one defendant | Defendants prefer joint counsel to present a unified defense and waive conflict concerns | Denied: risk of conflict not remote; court cannot ascertain a knowing, intelligent waiver; joint representation refused without prejudice to renew after independent advice |
| Whether defendants knowingly and intelligently waived right to conflict-free counsel | Government argued waiver insufficient given potential for diverging interests (e.g., plea offers) | Defendants submitted written waivers and in-court statements expressing consent | Held waiver not proven: signed waivers and ex parte responses did not permit the court to "ascertain with certainty" that waiver was knowing and intelligent |
| Whether Denny should be disqualified for prior representation of RRT | Government asked court to determine possible disqualification due to prior representation | Denny represented his RRT work was limited, concluded there was no conflict under Nevada RPCs, and said RRT is a former (not current) client | Denied: based on Denny's representations and no contradictory evidence, no conflict from his former RRT representation was found |
Key Cases Cited
- Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261 (discusses Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free counsel)
- Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (trial court discretion to refuse multiple representation and waiver limits)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (multiple representation and conflicts jurisprudence)
- Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (risk of conflict inherent in joint representation)
- United States v. Allen, 831 F.2d 1487 (9th Cir.) (duty to inquire into potential conflicts)
- Lockhart v. Terhune, 250 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir.) (actual conflict when defendants at odds re: culpability)
- Lewis v. Mayle, 391 F.3d 989 (9th Cir.) (waiver of conflict must be knowing and intelligent)
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (prosecution must communicate plea offers; counsel duty to inform client)