Commonwealth v. Armbruster

Opinion by

Spaeth, J.,

Appellant and his co-defendant were tried together for blackmail and conspiracy and found guilty by a jury.

Appellant’s first argument is that he was deprived of his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. He and his co-defendant each had separate counsel. However, counsel were apparently partners in the same firm, * and appellant argues that “one law firm cannot effectively represent co-defendants with conflicts of interest.”

The difficulty with appellant’s argument is that he does not identify any conflict of interest as a result of which he might have…