United States v. Arthur Andrew Allen

The defense of this marijuana smuggling case illuminates the serious constitutional and ethical problems facing lawyers who represent multiple co-defendants, or who orchestrate a joint defense or plea negotia tion among several co-conspirators. The Boston criminal defense firm of Oteri & Weinberg spearheaded the defense of the seventeen co-defendants here. The issue on this appeal is whether petitioner Arthur Allen was denied effective assistance of counsel due to unwaived conflicts of interest inherent in Oteri & Weinberg’s simultaneous representation of Allen, his co-defendant and boss Charles Minnig, and the unindicted “generals” of the smuggling operation. We conclude that although Oteri & Weinberg’s pre-trial representation of Allen bordered on a failure to comply with sixth amendment requirements, Allen was not denied effective assistance of counsel at trial and sentencing.

FACTS

In 1976 and 1977, Allen traveled to Europe several times on behalf of his childhood friend, Timothy Minnig. On these trips he deposited large sums of cash in a Swiss bank and arranged for the transfer of money for the purchase of a freighter that would ultimately be used to smuggle marijuana. In…