SOLINA

v.

UNITED STATES; AND BRUSCINO V. UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (12 total)

• Guenter Mannhalt v. Amos E. Reed, 847 F.2d 576 (9th Cir. 1988)
  …to a conflict between a client and his lawyer’s personal interest. See United States v. Hoffman, 733 F. 2d 596, 601-02 (9th Cir.) (client alleged conflict because of attorney’s failure to notify federal judge of state bar suspension), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1039, 105 S.Ct. 521, 83 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984); United States v. Hearst, 638 F. 2d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir.1980) (conflict based on attorney’s private financial interests), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 938, 101 S.Ct. 2018, 68 L.Ed.2d 325 (1981). A. Prior Representati…
• United States v. Rawle, 845 F.2d 1244 (4th Cir. 1988)
  …that one of the boats was purchased at a cost of $18,000.00. It is well established that such testimony can be introduced for the purposes of showing ill gotten gains. See United States v. Mitchell, 738 F. 2d 327, 331 (4th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1039, 105 S.Ct. 520, 83 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984). Moreover, the testimony was relevant to the issue of business enterprise because, while the enterprise need not be profitable, such evidence tends to indicate a source of funds spanning a significant period of…
• United States v. Turk, 870 F.2d 1304 (7th Cir. 1989)
  …oyner argues that she was prejudiced because she could not proceed with counsel of her choice in whom she had confidence. Joyner's argument can be easily refuted. As we noted in United States v. Solina, 733 F. 2d 1208, 1211 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1039, 105 S.Ct. 519, 83 L.Ed.2d 408 (1984), a court is not required to allow a last minute change in counsel that would disrupt the court schedule. Defendant does not have an absolute right to counsel of choice without regard for judicial integrity and e…