United States v. Geno Plummer
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Defendant-appellant Gene Orrin Plum-mer appeals his jury trial conviction for assault in Indian country in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113 (a)(6) and-1153. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse.
Plummer argues the district court abused its discretion and constructively de--nied him his Sixth Amendment right to representation when it denied his pretrial motion to substitute counsel. We consider the timeliness of the motion, the adequacy of the district court’s inquiry into the conflict, and the extent of the conflict to determine if the district court erred in denying the substitution. United States v. Nguyen, 262 F.3d 998, 1004 (9th Cir.2001); see also United States v. Moore, . 159 F.3d 1154 , 1158-59 & n. 3 (9th Cir.1998) (applying the same three factors when evaluating whether denial of substitution constructively denied a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel).
The first factor weighs in Plummer’s favor because his motion was timely. He filed the motion seven days after his indictment was entered, and before discovery had begun. At that early stage in the case, granting the motion was unlikely to cause substantial delay.