Wheat v. United States

In Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988), the defendant sought to retain an attorney who was burdened by a conflict of interest. The United States Supreme Court in Wheat stated that "the purpose of providing assistance of counsel is simply to ensure that criminal defendants receive a fair trial . . . and that in evaluating Sixth Amendment claims, the appropriate inquiry focuses on the adversarial process, not on the accused's relationship with his lawyer as such. . . . Thus, while the right to select and be represented by one's preferred attorney is comprehended by the Sixth Amendment, 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., 159. The Wheat court rejected the notion that a defendant's waiver cures the problem related to a conflict of interest, recognizing that federal courts have an "independent interest in ensuring that criminal trials are conducted within the ethical standards of the profession and that legal proceedings appear fair to all who observe them." Id., 160. Because of the difficulties associated with a court's determination of whether to disqualify counsel, the Supreme Court held that "substantial latitude" must be afforded a court's decision refusing a waiver of a conflict of interest, "not only in those rare cases where an actual conflict may be demonstrated before trial, but in the more common cases where a potential for conflict exists which may or may not burgeon into an actual conflict as the trial progresses." Id., 163. The Court stated that because the purpose of providing assistance of counsel is to ensure that criminal defendants receive a fair trial, the appropriate inquiry focuses on the adversarial process, not on the accused's relationship with his lawyer as such. The essential aim of the Sixth 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. The United States Supreme Court concluded that trial courts have broad discretion under the federal Constitution's right to counsel (Sixth Amendment) to remove (recuse) a criminal defense attorney facing a potential conflict regardless of a defendant's desire to waive the conflict. Wheat concluded that the Sixth Amendment is concerned more with effective representation than with preferred representation, and giving trial courts broad discretion on this issue avoids them being "whipsawed" by assertions of error no matter which way they rule. Wheat, supra, 486 U.S. at pages 159, 161. As the Wheat court put it: "While the right to select and be represented by one's preferred attorney is comprehended by the Sixth Amendment, 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." Wheat, supra, 486 U.S. at page 159. Thus, the United States Supreme Court, in construing the Sixth Amendment to the federal Constitution, has emphasized the right to conflict-free counsel where it collides with the right to counsel of choice.