People v. Salcedo, 68 N.Y.2d 130 (1986)
A defendant may waive their right to conflict-free representation, provided the trial court conducts a sufficiently thorough inquiry to ensure the waiver is informed and voluntary; there is no per se rule requiring consultation with independent counsel before accepting such a waiver.
Summary
Salcedo was on trial when the presiding judge discovered his counsel had previously represented Joaquin Lopez, a potential defense witness who was a target of the grand jury investigation related to Salcedo’s case. The trial court questioned the defense attorney about the potential conflict of interest. The attorney acknowledged a potential conflict, especially since Lopez was a possible witness. The court then thoroughly advised Salcedo about the implications of the conflict and the potential benefits of having conflict-free counsel. Salcedo waived his right to conflict-free representation. The New York Court of Appeals held that the trial court’s inquiry was sufficient to ensure Salcedo’s waiver was informed and voluntary and that there is no mandatory requirement for consultation with independent counsel.
Facts
During Salcedo’s trial, the judge discovered that his defense attorney had previously represented Joaquin Lopez during the grand jury inquiry into the same incident for which Salcedo was being tried.
Lopez had been a target of the grand jury investigation but was not indicted.
Lopez was on the defense attorney’s list of potential witnesses, and the court considered Lopez’s grand jury testimony to be favorable to Salcedo’s case (Brady material).
Procedural History
The trial court, upon discovering the potential conflict, questioned Salcedo’s attorney and then Salcedo himself about the conflict and Salcedo’s willingness to waive his right to conflict-free representation.
Salcedo waived the conflict.
On appeal, Salcedo argued that the trial court should have required him to consult with independent counsel before accepting his waiver.
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision.
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether a trial court must, as a matter of law, afford a defendant the opportunity to consult with independent counsel before accepting a waiver of the right to conflict-free representation, provided the court conducts a searching inquiry to assure the waiver is informed and voluntary.
Holding
No, because while the advice of a conflict-impaired attorney is not sufficient on its own, a careful inquiry by the court is an adequately reliable safeguard, and there is no need to add an additional layer of mandatory inquiry or consultation with independent counsel.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that while a defendant is entitled to conflict-free representation, this right can be waived. The key is that the waiver must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The court emphasized the thoroughness of the trial court’s inquiry, during which Salcedo was specifically advised of the potential benefits of having conflict-free counsel and the risks associated with his attorney’s prior representation of Lopez. The court stated that “just as ‘there is no prescribed * * * catechism that the court must follow’ in ascertaining a defendant’s understanding of his choices, there is no per se rule requiring consultation with independent counsel.” The court found that the trial court’s inquiry was a sufficient safeguard to ensure Salcedo’s waiver was informed and voluntary. The court distinguished between the advice of the conflict-impaired attorney, which is insufficient on its own, and a careful inquiry by the court, which it deemed an adequately reliable safeguard. The court declined to create a mandatory rule requiring consultation with independent counsel, finding no need to add an additional layer of mandatory inquiry or consultation, given the careful inquiry already conducted by the trial court. The court also noted that it had the power to review the sufficiency of the trial court’s inquiry independently, as it is a question of law.