UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JUAN RODRIGUEZ SALINAS AND JOSE LUIS MALDONADO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A trial judge may disqualify a retained attorney in a criminal case if the judge believes the attorney is the target of an investigation concerning the clients' indicted events.
The trial judge disqualified the defendants' retained attorney, believing the attorney was a target of an investigation related to the clients' indict…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Right To Counsel Of Choice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This case raises the issue of whether a trial judge may disqualify a retained attorney, in a criminal case, where the judge believes that the attorney is the “target” of an investigation concerning the event or events for which his clients were indicted. We affirm the trial judge’s order of disqualification.
The right of defendants in criminal cases to retain an attorney of their choice does not outweigh the countervailing public interest in the fair and orderly administration of justice. United States v. Kitchin, 592 F. 2d 900 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 100 S.Ct. 86, 62 L.Ed.2d 56 (1979); Gandy v. Alabama, 569 F. 2d 1318 (5th Cir. 1978).
Authority clearly supports the right of a trial judge to regulate the conduct of attorneys during the course of a case. United States v. Kitchin; United States v. Dinitz, 538 F. 2d 1214 (5th Cir. 1976) (en banc), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1104, 97 S.Ct. 1133, 51 L.Ed.2d 556 (1977).
Our standard of review is whether the trial judge abused his discretion. In re Gopman, 531 F. 2d 262 (5th Cir. 1976). We agree that the trial “court’s discretion permits it ‘to nip any potential conflict of interest in the bud.’ ” Id., at 266.
After reviewing the record in this case, we find that the trial judge acted within the bounds of his discretion in disqualifying the appellants’ attorney.
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial judge.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Bundy v. State, 455 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1984)
-
Foster v. State, 704 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
-
Alvarez v. State, 75 So. 3d 420 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gandy v. State OF Ala., 569 F.2d 1318 (5th Cir. 1978)
- United States v. Dinitz, 538 F.2d 1214 (5th Cir. 1976)
- In re Matter of Seymour A. Gopman. United States v. Seymour A. Gopman, 531 F.2d 262 (5th Cir. 1976)
- Kelley v. City of Cincinnati, 429 U.S. 1104 (U.S. 1977)
- Stevens v. New York, 429 U.S. 1104 (U.S. 1977)
- United States v. Kitchin, 592 F.2d 900 (5th Cir. 1979)