United States v. Garcia

2 Citing briefs

  1. The People, Respondent,v.Paul Cortez, Appellant.

    Brief

    Filed October 15, 2013

    Indeed, defendants in some jurisdictions are expressly told that “if convicted, [they] will not be able to complain” that the trial defense was “compromised” by counsel’s competing loyalties, the conflict waiver also waiving any right to appeal its effects. Veney v. United States, 738 A.2d 1185, 1195 n.12 (D.C. 1999); see also Turner, 354 N.W.2d at 625 (this “ounce of procedural prevention … forestall[s] the necessity of a pound of appellate cure”); United States v. Garcia, 517 F.2d 272, 278 (5th Cir. 1975) abrogated on other grounds by Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 262 (1984) (recorded waiver colloquies further “government’s interest” by shielding convictions from appellate attack). Given these myriad advantages, this appears to be one of those instances where the benefits of implementing a modest change in procedure far outweigh the costs of maintaining the status quo.

  2. The People, Respondent,v.Paul Cortez, Appellant.

    Brief

    Filed October 15, 2013

    The process is further enhanced by the Second Circuit’s direction that the trial court explore the defendant’s understanding of the conflict through questions that require a narrative answer, rather than through leading questions that elicit “yes” or “no” answers. Curcio, 680 F.2d at 889 (citing United States v. Garcia, 517 F.2d 272, 277-78 (5th Cir. 1975)). 11 Because it is clear and thorough, and creates a full record for appellate review, the Curcio protocol has been adopted, explicitly or implicitly, in numerous other state and federal jurisdictions.