United States v. Charles Schwarz, Thomas Wiese, and Thomas Bruder, Justin A. Volpe and Michael Bellomo

How courts have described this case

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

• “This conflict would seem to be the only possible explanation for why [trial counsel] did not pursue the strategy of implicating [a third party].”
• Court: “Are 7 you willing to go forward with Mr. Ginsberg as trial counsel despite the conflicts I’ve described today?”; Tucker: “Absolutely, nonnegotiable.”
• “The finding of an actual conflict, however, is only the first step in determining whether [a defendant] has established his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.”
• “An actual or potential conflict cannot be waived if, in the circumstances of the case, the conflict is of such a serious nature that no rational defendant would knowingly and intelligently desire that attorney’s representation.”
• “[N]ot every instance of a juror’s exposure to extrinsic information results in the denial of a defendant’s right to a fair trial. Many such instances do not.”
• “Under these circumstances, we are convinced that no effective conflict-free defense attorney would have acted as [the attorney] did, and, thus, only [the attorney’s] conflict could explain his actions.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).