Legal Opinion
Morgan v. United States
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided December 16, 1968No. Civ. No. 11544PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
TIMBERS, Chief Judge.
QUESTION PRESENTED
Upon remand from the Court of Appeals, the District Court was directed to find whether “there was [any] conflict of interest in the presentation of Morgan’s defense and Stein’s defense by the same attorney or [whether] any conflict was so minimal that it could not have affected the result.”1
After a hearing, the Court holds that the attorney appointed to represent Morgan was appointed not only with Morgan’s consent but in response to Morgan’s specific request; and that any resulting conflict of interest was so minimal as to be not prejudicial.
Accordingly,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Charles Earl Brubaker v. Fred R. Dickson, Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin, CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1962
- United States v. Virgil D. Dardi, Robert B. Gravis, Charles Rosenthal and Charles BermanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1964
- United States v. Ralph GarguiloCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1963
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- George Kaplan v. Roy Bombard, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility, RespondentCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1978
- Tropiano v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1971
- Grant v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1978
- George Kaplan v. Roy Bombard, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility, RespondentCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1978