Legal Opinion
United States v. Armaza
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided September 4, 2003No. 03 CR. 61(JGK)PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
KOELTL, District Judge.
The Government moves to disqualify the Law Offices of Murray Richman (“Rich-man Firm”) from representing the defendant Gustavo Armaza (“Armaza”) because of the firm’s prior representation of Alvin Blassingame (“Blassingame”), a witness who is cooperating with the Government and who is expected to be a significant witness against Armaza at trial.
The Court has appointed independent counsel to represent Armaza and to consult with him as to whether he wishes the Richman Firm to represent him. Armaza has indicated his desire to have the Rich-man Firm, and…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Wheat v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Mickens v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Wood v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- T. C. Theatre Corp. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1953
- The Government of India and the Food Corporation of India v. Cook Industries, Inc. And Cook and CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1978
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Garcia-Giraldo v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2010