Hunter v. United States · ¶132
In Wheat v. United States, 486 U. S. 153 (1988), this Court declined to enforce a different kind of waiver, but it did so based on a requirement in the Federal Rules. There, a defendant sought to retain counsel who was currently representing his co-conspirators. The Government objected to the joint representation due to the risk of a confict of interest. Brief for United States in Wheat v. United States, O. T. 1987, No. 87–4, pp. 3, 7. The defendant waived his right to a confict-free counsel. The District Court refused to accept the waiver and rejected the defendant's choice of counsel. This Court affirmed. Central to its reasoning, the Court explained that “the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure direct trial judges to investigate specially” cases with joint representations that may create conficts of interest “ `to protect each defendant's right to counsel.' ” Wheat, 486 U. S., at 161…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.