Magnolia Ross, Petitioner-Appellee-Appellant v. Robert Heyne and Theodore L. Sendak, Respondents-Appellants-Appellees

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• conflict of interest arising from a trial in which one attorney represented the defendant while his law partner represented codefendants who testified for the prosecution
• conflict because one attorney represented defendant while his law partner represented codefendants who testified for prosecution
• defense counsel knew testimony denying plea agreement was false because his law partner was witness’ defense attorney and defense counsel, therefore, had conflict of interest
• \An actual conflict would arise where defense counsel is unable to cross-examine a prosecution witness effectively because the attorney also represented the witness.\
• \[t]he Supreme Court's proposal of this rule indicates its recognition that the potential constitutional problems attendant to multiple representation are present when different attorneys from the same legal partnership represent co-defendants with conflicting interests.\
• “[t]he Supreme Court’s proposal of this rule indicates its recognition that the potential constitutional problems attendant to multiple representation are present when different attorneys from the same legal partnership represent co-defendants with conflicting interests.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).