United States v. McKeighan
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14656
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- In April 2006 authorities searched McKeighan’s storage unit in Kansas City, KS, uncovering firearms, marijuana, methamphetamine, cash, and documents tying to him.
- McKeighan retained Attorney Salazar for a $25,000 fee; local counsel Morgan withdrew with a conflict-of-interest claim, triggering issues about Salazar’s representation.
- The government moved to withhold discovery pending fee details and submitted a sealed ex parte filing regarding conflicts; Salazar later transferred his fee to the court registry after Morgan withdrew.
- A money-laundering count related to the fee arrangement was added in Feb. 2007; Bledsoe pled guilty to a reduced charge, and McKeighan went to trial on Counts 1–4.
- At trial, Orr and Bledsoe testified about the note Orr signed; McKeighan was convicted on Counts 1–4 with a later, upheld obstruction-of-justice enhancement tied to the note.
- McKeighan appeals arguing (i) denial of counsel of choice, (ii) sleeping jurors violated impartiality, and (iii) improper obstruction enhancement; the court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Counsel of choice rights violated? | McKeighan | McKeighan | No constitutional violation; no improper government pressure or coercion. |
| Sleeping jurors violated impartiality? | McKeighan | Government | No reversible error; no demonstrated prejudice from sleeping jurors. |
| Obstruction of justice enhancement proper? | McKeighan | McKeighan | Two-level enhancement affirmed; evidence showed intent to obstruct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988) (right to counsel of choice balanced with fair administration of justice)
- Gonzalez-Lopez v. United States, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (structural error when denied counsel of choice; no prejudice required)
- Collins v. United States, 920 F.2d 619 (10th Cir. 1990) (court may restrict counsel when conflicts affect justice)
- Nichols v. United States, 841 F.2d 1485 (10th Cir. 1988) (prosecution should not manufacture conflicts; weighing of interests)
- Migliaccio, 34 F.3d 1517 (10th Cir. 1994) (prosecution duty to disclose defense conflicts supports justice)