Holloway v. Arkansas
- Decided
- April 3, 1978
- Docket
- 76-5856
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,478 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that the defendant was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel where appointed counsel’s representation presented a conflict of interest — Commonwealth v. D'Amato (2004)
- concluding that the concepts of prejudice and harmless error are inapplicable in the conflict of interest con text — John S. Freund v. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General (1999)
- concluding that the concepts of prejudice and harmless error are inapplicable in the conflict of interest context — John S. Freund v. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General (1999)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Chief Justice Burger delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners, codefendants at trial, made timely motions for appointment of separate counsel, based on the representations of their appointed counsel that, because of confidential information received from the codefendants, he was confronted with the risk of representing conflicting interests and could [*477] not, therefore, provide effective assistance for each client. We granted certiorari to decide whether petitioners were deprived of the effective assistance of counsel by the denial of those motions. 430 U. S. 965 (1977).
I
Cite this
Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (1978)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.