Holloway v. Arkansas

435 U.S. 475 (1978)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ds entered a restaurant and robbed and terrorized the five employees. One of the two female employees was raped once; the other, twice. The ensuing police investigation led to the arrests of Ds. The trial court appointed Harold Hall, a public defender, to represent all three defendants. Hall moved on two occasions prior to trial to have separate counsel appointed because based on confidential information he could see that a conflict of interest might arise between all three defendants. During trial, Hall made the request again after the prosecution rested its case and informed that judge that all three defendants were going to testify. Hall claimed that he could not cross-examine for the benefit of any client he represented. The court just told Hall to allow each defendant the time to make a narrative testimony. All three were eventually convicted, and Ds appealed. On appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court, Ds raised the claim that their representation by a single appointed attorney, over their objection, violated federal constitutional guarantees of effective assistance of counsel. The court resolved this issue by stating that the record must show some material basis for an alleged conflict of interest before reversible error occurs in single representation of co-defendants. This showing was not made, and the courts ruled against Ds. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.