The opinion of the court was delivered by: McLAUGHLIN, District Judge.
Presently pending before the Court in this criminal matter is the government's motion to disqualify defense counsel, Dennis V. Williams, Esq. from his representation of Defendant John Cooley. The motion is premised upon the government's assertion of a potential conflict of interest arising from Mr. Williams's prior representation of two individuals whom the government expects to call as witnesses against Cooley in the event this case proceeds to trial.
Mr. Williams previously represented the two prospective witnesses (whom, for the sake of anonymity, we refer to hereafter as "John Doe 1" and "John Doe 2") in connection with unrelated drug trafficking charges. In June of 2002 Mr. Williams, although not yet formally representing Cooley, was disqualified from acting as counsel for John Doe 1 upon the government's motion. At the time, Cooley was evidently under investigation and had been in contact with Mr. Williams. It was assumed by the government, and apparently also by Doe 1, that Mr. Williams would represent Cooley in the event that he was formally charged. Doe 1, meanwhile, had been cooperating with the government by providing information about other individuals who were allegedly involved in illicit drug activity, including Cooley. According to the Assistant U.S. Attorney, Doe 1 had requested Mr. Williams's disqualification because of Doe 1's belief that Mr. Williams's allegiance to Cooley would potentially jeopardize his own case. The Court granted the government's motion to disqualify Mr. Williams on the grounds that there was a conflict between the interests of Doe 1 on the one hand (in providing information to the government which incriminated Cooley), and Cooley on the other (in avoiding such incrimination).
In the instant case, the government first raised its motion to disqualify Mr. Williams at the time of Cooley's initial appearance before United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter on December 11, 2002. The government contends that Mr. Williams should be disqualified from acting as Cooley's counsel because it is anticipated that John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 will present incriminating testimony against Cooley in the event that Cooley's case proceeds to trial. Mr. Williams responds that he has never obtained any information in the course of his prior representations of Doe 1 and Doe 2 pertaining to the case against Cooley. Furthermore, it is Cooley's intention to waive any objection based on an actual or potential conflict of interest.
The right to counsel, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, encompasses the accused's right to select and be represented by the attorney of his choice. See Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 159, 108 S.Ct. 1692, 100 L.Ed.2d 140 (1988). Nevertheless, the "essential aim" of the Amendment is "to guarantee an effective advocate for each criminal defendant, rather than to ensure that a defendant will inexorably be represented by the lawyer whom he prefers." Id. (citations omitted). Accordingly, when evaluating conflict-of-interest claims that implicate an accused's Sixth Amendment rights, the court's focus is on the integrity of the adversarial process as opposed to the accused's relationship with his lawyer as such. Id. (citation omitted). In evaluating the government's motion to disqualify Mr. Williams, we recognize Cooley's presumptive right to retain legal counsel of his choice. Nevertheless, "that presumption may be overcome not only by a demonstration of actual conflict of interest but by a showing of a serious potential for conflict." Wheat, 486 U.S. at 164, 108 S.Ct. 1692 (emphasis supplied).
Mr. Williams has represented to this Court that he has acquired no confidential information from either Doe 1 or Doe 2 that bears on Cooley's criminal case. Thus, the argument goes, he is not in a position where he might be pressured to use Doe 1's or Doe 2's own confidential communications against them during cross-examination, should the need for such cross-examination present itself. Mr. Williams contends that the government cannot articulate any basis on which Cooley's defense would be jeopardized by virtue of a competing loyalty to the government witnesses. As far as Mr. Williams is concerned, he owes no duty of allegiance to Doe 1 or Doe 2 since he has been removed as their counsel. His only allegiance, he believes, is to his current client Cooley, and he therefore contends that no actual or serious potential for conflict exists in this case.
Unfortunately, we do not think the issue can be so easily dismissed. The nascency of Cooley's criminal case makes it difficult for all parties to fully appreciate and assess the true potential for conflict that is presented here. The Supreme Court has recognized the difficulty inherent in these situations:
Wheat, 486 U.S. at 162-63, 108 S.Ct. 1692.
Contrary to Mr. Williams's assertion, the mere fact that he is not currently possessed of privileged information from Doe 1 or Doe 2 relative to Cooley's alleged illicit activities does not end the inquiry. Regardless of what Doe 1 or Doe 2 may or may not have told Mr. Williams, the fact remains that they allegedly possess information that incriminates Cooley and, consequently, there is a very real possibility Mr. Williams may have to cross-examine his former clients concerning this information. Should this situation occur, Mr. Williams's duty to Cooley would require him to attack the credibility of his former clients on any available legitimate basis. At this point, even Mr. Williams cannot know for sure what bases might present themselves for attack. Nevertheless, the Third Circuit has recognized that "[c]onflicts of interest arise whenever an attorney's loyalties are divided, and an attorney who cross-examines former clients inherently encounters divided loyalties." United States v. Stewart, 185 F.3d 112, 121 (3d Cir. 1999) (emphasis supplied) (quoting United States v. Moscony, 927 F.2d 742, 750 (3d Cir. 1991)).
We find the case of United States v. Bradford, 121 F. Supp.2d 454 (W.D.Pa. 2000) (Cohill, J.), to be instructive on this point. In Bradford, the defendant was represented by Joseph E. Hudak, Esq. on charges of possessing cocaine with the intent of distributing the same. Mr. Hudak concurrently represented another individual, Jamal Arnold, on an unrelated statutory rape case. Arnold, a fellow prison inmate of Bradford's, later became a prospective government witness in the Bradford case when it was learned that he had allegedly acquired incriminating admissions from Bradford relative to his pending drug conspiracy charge. The district court disqualified Mr. Hudak from further representation in the Bradford case, notwithstanding Mr. Hudak's assertion that he had learned nothing from Arnold as a result of their attorney-client relationship that pertained to Bradford's case. The court found that a potential conflict of interest existed, despite Mr. Hudak's offer to withdraw as counsel for Arnold:
In order to effectively represent Bradford at trial,
Hudak will have to crossexamine a former client
testifying for the government and, regardless of
Hudak's knowledge concerning Arnold's testimony, he
presumably will have to attack Arnold's credibility.
"Conflicts of interest arise whenever an attorney's
loyalties are divided, and an attorney who
cross-examines former clients inherently encounters
divided loyalties." Moscony, 927 F.2d at 750
(internal citations omitted). At trial, Hudak may be
unwilling or unable to vigorously crossexamine Arnold
due to Hudak's representation of Arnold. Thus,
Bradford's right to effective counsel could be
compromised as a result of Hudak's divided loyalties.
121 F. Supp.2d at 456. The court declined Mr. Hudak's invitation to "examine `what would actually be the subject of (his) cross-examination,'" noting that a defendant's trial strategy is never fixed and, "[f]or the court to accept an assurance of a contemplated cross-examination, would be `opening the door for a manufactured mistrial or a possible ineffective assistance of counsel claim on appeal.'" Id. (quoting Stewart, 185 F.3d at 122). We view Bradford ...