People v. Allah, 80 N.Y.2d 396 (1992)

When codefendants are jointly represented and an actual conflict of interest exists, the trial court must inquire on the record whether each defendant is aware of the potential risks and has knowingly chosen that course of action; without such inquiry, a defendant’s consent to joint representation is not considered informed, and a conviction obtained under such circumstances will be reversed.

Summary

Defendant Allah was convicted of robbery and weapons possession after a trial where he was jointly represented by the attorneys for his codefendants during jury deliberations due to his own attorney’s absence. A key witness for one of the codefendants implicated Allah while simultaneously exculpating the codefendants. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court failed to adequately inquire into the potential conflict of interest arising from the joint representation, especially given the conflicting testimony. The court emphasized that the defendant’s consent was not informed, thus depriving him of effective assistance of counsel.

Facts

Allah, Robinson, and Thompson were jointly tried for robbery, assault, weapons possession, and grand larceny. The charges stemmed from an incident where several complainants were accosted by a group, some armed, and robbed. At trial, the defendants attempted to establish that they were not present during the encounter. Three complainants identified Allah in court and in pre-trial lineups. A witness for codefendant Thompson testified that she saw Allah running with a gun but did not see Thompson or Robinson, further implicating Allah while establishing a defense for the codefendants. Allah’s attorney informed the court he would be out of town and the other attorneys would represent him, to which Allah consented on the record.

Procedural History

The jury acquitted the codefendants but convicted Allah. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the defendant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel when his attorney absented himself during jury deliberations and the attorneys for his codefendants assumed his representation.
2. Whether the trial court adequately inquired into the potential conflict of interest arising from the joint representation, given the conflicting testimony presented at trial.

Holding

1. Yes, because an actual conflict existed between defendant and codefendants, and the joint representation impaired defendant’s right to receive assistance from an attorney whose undivided responsibility is to that defendant alone.
2. No, because the court did not make a sufficient inquiry to ensure that the defendant understood the risks inherent in the joint representation, especially considering the witness testimony implicating the defendant while exculpating the codefendants.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized the trial court’s duty to inquire into potential conflicts of interest when codefendants are jointly represented. Citing People v. Macerola, the court stated that such inquiry is necessary to ensure a defendant’s decision to pursue joint representation is informed. The court found an actual conflict of interest because a witness implicated Allah while simultaneously exculpating his codefendants. Specifically, the court noted that Rachel Hilliard, a witness for codefendant Thompson, testified that she saw Allah running with a gun but did not see Thompson or Robinson at the scene. The Court found that this testimony pitted the defenses against each other and impaired Allah’s right to an attorney with undivided loyalty. As the court explained, “[D]efendant’s right to receive assistance from an attorney whose undivided responsibility is to that defendant alone was impaired by joint representation by counsel for the codefendants.” The court also highlighted the lack of explanation for the defense counsel’s absence and the trial court’s failure to properly inquire into the risks, making Allah’s consent to joint representation invalid. Because the trial court failed to adequately safeguard Allah’s right to effective assistance of counsel in light of the conflict, the conviction was reversed.