Amended Opinion Vincent Ray Willis v. United States

Willis appeals from the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . He and co-defendant Evanoff were convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). Willis contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because he and Evanoff were represented by members of the same law firm. Specifically, Willis argues that he should be granted a new trial because conflict of interest prevented his attorney from presenting his most effective defense and because the trial judge failed to obtain his waiver of potential conflicts of interest. We affirm.

I

Willis first asserts that his attorney, Bitkower, showed a lack of independent judgment in failing to develop a plausible separate defense. Before turning to the factual support for this assertion, it is important that we clarify the law of the Ninth Circuit in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 , 98 S.Ct. 1173 , 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978).

A. The Law

While it is established that criminal defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel unburdened by conflicting loyalties,…