United States v. Jones
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24082
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Jones was convicted of conspiracy to distribute heroin and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense.
- DEA wiretaps linked Jones to a San Diego–to–St. Louis heroin distribution network; a firearm was seized from a co-conspirator.
- Jones retained Rosenblum, Schwartz, Rogers & Glass; three continuances were granted before trial.
- A superseding indictment added a weapons-charge based on the seized firearm; suppression motion had been denied.
- On the eve of trial, Jones sought substitute counsel and a continuance; the district court denied the request.
- During deliberations, the court allowed playback of wiretap tapes outside Jones’s presence with precautions; Jones did not object.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a continuance to substitute counsel violated Sixth Amendment rights | Jones asserts the court abused discretion in denying the continuation. | United States argues there was adequate time to prepare and no appearance of conflict. | No abuse; Cordy factors weigh against substitution. |
| Whether the court conducted a sufficient inquiry into the alleged irreconcilable conflict | Jones contends the court failed to thoroughly investigate the conflict. | United States contends inquiry was adequate and akin to Rodriguez. | Inquiry was adequate; no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether playing wiretap tapes outside Jones’s presence violated his right to be present at critical stages | Jones argues the playback deprived him of presence at a critical trial stage. | United States argues waiver and lack of structural error; defense assisted in plan. | Waived; no structural error; plain-error review unnecessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cordy, 560 F.3d 808 (8th Cir. 2009) (trial court broad discretion on continuances to substitute counsel)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (U.S. 2006) (right to counsel of choice governs representation)
- United States v. Whitehead, 487 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 2007) (right to counsel must not be obstructed by conflicts)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 612 F.3d 1049 (8th Cir. 2010) (adequate inquiry into counsel conflicts supported denial of substitution)
- Atley v. Ault, 191 F.3d 865 (8th Cir. 1999) (habeas like scrutiny of conflict inquiry; inadequate inquiry if essential questions are missing)
- Smith v. Lockhart, 923 F.2d 1314 (8th Cir. 1991) (inquiry into counsel adequacy when conflicts alleged)
- Becht v. United States, 403 F.3d 541 (8th Cir. 2005) (structural errors are limited and rarely trigger automatic reversal)
- United States v. Gutierrez, 130 F.3d 330 (8th Cir. 1997) (distinguishes waiver from forfeiture for rights at trial)
- Helmig v. Kemna, 461 F.3d 960 (8th Cir. 2006) (exposure to extraneous information is not structural error)