Summary
**Key Legal Topics:** Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free counsel; trial court’s duty to inquire into potential conflicts of interest (including literary rights agreements); standard for reversal when an actual conflict exists (whether adverse effect on counsel’s performance must be shown or may be presumed). **Summary:** In this certiorari denial, dissenting Justices Marshall and Brennan argued that the Court should have granted review to address two recurring Sixth Amendment issues: (1) the threshold showing required to trigger a trial court’s duty to investigate a potential conflict of interest, and (2) whether a defendant must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected counsel’s performance to obtain a new trial. The dissent maintained that the California Supreme Court erred by requiring “hard evidence” to trigger the duty to inquire and by requiring proof of adverse effect, urging that an actual conflict alone should necessitate reversal. The case involved a serial killer whose attorney may have had a literary rights agreement and a prior attorney-client relationship with a key prosecution witness.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court had a duty to inquire into a potential conflict of interest arising from a literary rights agreement between defendant and counsel.
- Whether a criminal defendant must show that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected counsel's performance to obtain a new trial.
Holdings
- The petition is denied.
Key quotations
“A grave conflict of interest can arise out of an agreement between a lawyer and an accused giving the lawyer the right to publish books, plays, articles, interviews, pictures, or related literary rights concerning the case. . . . [I]t may place the lawyer under temptation to conduct the defense with an eye on the literary aspects and its dramatic potential. If such an arrangement or contract is part of the fee, in lieu of the fee, or a condition of accepting the employment, it is especially reprehensible.” (7)
“the assistance of counsel is among those 'constitutional rights so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error.'” (14)
“The mere physical presence of an attorney does not fulfill the Sixth Amendment guarantee when the advocate's conflicting obligations have effectively sealed his lips on crucial matters” (14)
Factual background
Bonin, indicted for multiple murders and robberies, moved to replace his attorney with William Charvet on the eve of trial. The prosecution opposed because Charvet had previously represented Bonin's alleged accomplice, James Munro, and because Charvet's retainer agreement might have included a literary rights deal. The trial court initially denied the motion but later allowed Charvet to represent Bonin without addressing the conflicts or obtaining a waiver. Bonin was convicted of 10 counts of murder and robbery and sentenced to death. The California Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence, finding that Bonin had not demonstrated that the conflict adversely affected Charvet's performance.
Procedural history
Bonin was convicted of 10 counts of murder and robbery and sentenced to death. The California Supreme Court affirmed. He then petitioned for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied.