Conflicts of interest resulting from multiple representation in criminal cases impose heavy burdens on all the participants in the criminal justice system. Although the Supreme Court in Holloway v. Arkansas refused to hold that joint representation is unconstitutional per se, it recently approved Proposed Rule of Criminal Procedure 44(c), which would require trial courts to protect a defendant\u27s right to counsel in this situation. After discussing the current approaches of the courts to the problems presented by joint representation, Professor Tague analyzes the proposed rule. He criticizes the proposed rule for its failure to define the role of the trial court and counsel and for its failure to address adequately the underlying constitutional conflict between the right to the effective assistance of counsel and the right to select counsel. He concludes that these issues may be resolved only if the defendant is required to make a binding choice between these two rights and suggests several revisions to the proposed rule
To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.