MCNICHOLS

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Cancilla, 725 F.2d 867 (2d Cir. 1984)
  …licable to this case because Solina “did not raise any question of conflict of interest.” We agree that the conflict there raised was not the more usual one of multiple representation, see, e.g., Camera v. Fogg, 658 F. 2d 80 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1129, 102 S.Ct. 981, 71 L.Ed.2d 117 (1981). But to assert that counsel in Solina had no “conflict” is myopic. What could be more of a conflict than a concern over getting oneself into trouble with criminal law enforcement authorities? The government appe…
• United States v. Curcio, 694 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1982)
  …fendants concerned and their attorney” were likewise made in a concurring opinion; moreover, there is nothing to indicate that Judge Lumbard would apply so stringent a remedy in every case. In Camera v. Fogg, 658 F. 2d 80, 89 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1129, 102 S.Ct. 981, 71 L.Ed.2d 117 (1981), the court found that the defendants had received no meaningful explanation of the problems of multiple representation — surely not the situation here. . Francis has even had prior experience with joint represe…
• United States v. Honorable Walter Kelly, 870 F.2d 854 (2d Cir. 1989)
  …onceive of a conflict of interest between clients that would not be serious. See, e.g., Camera v. Fogg, 658 F. 2d 80, 86 (2d Cir.) (actual conflict between clients sufficient to show prejudice from multiple representation by attorney), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1129, 102 S.Ct. 981, 71 L.Ed.2d 117 (1981). In the circumstances presented by this case, there can be no doubt that Linn’s potential conflict was serious, that his loyalty was divided between a client and a former client, and that representing Tineo wo…