United States v. James Knight, 680 F.2d 470 (6th Cir. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. James Knight, 680 F.2d 470 (6th Cir. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State of Tennessee v. Aaron Michael King (tenncrimapp, 2024-06-07)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Tennessee v. Aaron Michael King
Tenn. Crim. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. White, 174 F.3d 290, 295 (2d Cir. 1999); Winkler v. Keane, 7 F.3d 304, 308 (2d Cir. 1993); Spreitzer v. Peters, 114 F.3d 1435, 1450 (7th Cir. 1997); Westbrook v. Zant, 704 F.2d 1487, 1498-99 (11th Cir. 1983), overruled on other grounds, Peek v. Kemp, 784 F.2d 1479, 1494 (11th Cir. 1986); United States v. Harris, 701 F.2d 1095, 1099 (4th Cir. 1983); United States v. Knight, 680 F.2d 470, 471 (6th Cir. 1982) (per curiam); Ware v. King, 694 F.2d 89, 92 (5th Cir. 1982) (per curiam); Alexander v. Housewright, 667 F.2d 556, 558 (8th Cir. 1981); United States v. Hearst, 63…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Moseley v. Scully
E.D.N.Y · 1995 · confidence medium
See United States v. Winkle, 722 F.2d 605, 611-12 (10th Cir.1983) (“While the record thus left this serious question [of waiver of a possible conflict] open without a discussion by the court with the defendant, and without a clear determination on the conflict of interests question, we cannot agree that reversal and a new trial are now mandated”); Brien v. United States, 695 F.2d 10 , 15 n. 10 (1st Cir.1982) (holding that while “[s]ome courts, looking to Wood’s language stating that a reversal is ‘mandated’ when the required inquiry is not conducted[,] have assumed that the trial c…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Beets v. Collins (2×)
5th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Westbrook v. Zant, 704 F.2d 1487, 1498-99 (11th Cir. 1983), overruled on other grounds, Peek v. Kemp, 784 F.2d 1479, 1494 (11th Cir. 1986) (Cuyler not limited to the multiple representation context); United States v. Harris, 701 F.2d 1095, 1099 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1214 , 103 S.Ct. 3554 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1400 (1983); United States v. Knight, 680 F.2d 470, 471 (6th Cir. 20 day, however, the uncertainty remains.13 The dissent shares this uncertainty, arguing on one hand that Cuyler is not limited to multiple or serial representation cases but acknowledging that it should not …
examined Cited as authority (rule) Betty Lou Beets v. Wayne Scott, Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division (4×)
5th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Westbrook v. Zant, 704 F.2d 1487, 1498-99 (11th Cir.1983), overruled on other grounds, Peek v. Kemp, 784 F.2d 1479, 1494 (11th Cir.1986) (Cuyler not limited to the multiple representation context); United States v. Harris, 701 F.2d 1095, 1099 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1214 , 103 S.Ct. 3554 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1400 (1983); United States v. Knight, 680 F.2d 470, 471 (6th Cir.1982) (per curiam), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1102 , 103 S.Ct. 723 , 74 L.Ed.2d 950 (1983); Ware v. King, 694 F.2d 89, 92 (5th Cir.1982) (per curiam), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 930 , 103 S.Ct. 2092 , 77 L.Ed.2d 302 (1…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Bruce Grant, Sr.
6th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Accord O'Guin v. Foltz, 715 F.2d 397, 400 (6th Cir. 1983); United States v. Knight, 680 F.2d 470, 471 (6th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1102 (1983). 9 Since appellant did not raise the possibility of a conflict of interest until after the jury had found him guilty, but before the District Court had sentenced him, appellant must demonstrate an actual conflict of interest.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Illinois v. Washington (2×)
SCOTUS · 1984 · confidence medium
See Westbrook v. Zant, 704 F. 2d 1487, 1498-1499 (CA11 1983); United States v. Harris, 701 F. 2d 1095, 1099 (CA4 1983); United States v. Knight, 680 F. 2d 470, 471 (CA6 1982) (per curiam), cert. denied, 459 U. S. 1102 (1983); Ware v. King, 694 F. 2d 89, 92 (CA5 1982) (per curiam), cert. denied, 461 U. S. 930 (1983); Alexander v. Housewright, 667 F. 2d 556, 558 (CA8 1981); United States v. Hearst, 638 F. 2d 1190, 1193 (CA9 1981).
discussed Cited "see" Kinser v. Commonwealth (2×)
Ky. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Knight, 680 F.2d 470 (6th Cir. 1982) cert. den. 459 U.S. 1102 , 103 S.Ct. 723 , 74 L.Ed.2d 950 (1983).
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
James KNIGHT, Defendant-Appellant
80-5118.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Jun 22, 1982.
680 F.2d 470
W. Robert Lotz, Jr., Cobb & Oldfield, Covington, Ky., for defendant-appellant., Louis DeFalaise, U. S. Atty., Robert F. Trevey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lexington, Ky., for plaintiff-appellee.
Edwards, Lively, Per Curiam, Wiseman.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Upon the original appeal by Knight from his conviction for conspiracy, fraud and interstate transportation of stolen property, this court concluded there had been a sufficient showing of a conflict of interest on the part of Knight’s trial counsel to require further inquiry. Following the procedure which the Supreme Court resorted to in Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261, 101 S.Ct. 1097, 67 L.Ed.2d 220 (1981), we remanded Knight’s case to the district court for a determination of whether any actual conflict existed and, if so, whether Knight was prejudiced thereby. United States v. Taylor, et al., 6th Cir., 657 F.2d 92.

Following remand the district court held an evidentiary hearing at which Knight testified. Both of the attorneys who represented Knight during the criminal trial testified, as did the assistant United States attorney who represented the government throughout the trial. In addition, another assistant United States attorney who had investigated an allegation that copies of documents related to the trial had been stolen, was a witness at the hearing. Following this hearing the district court entered a memorandum in which he summarized the evidence concerning the missing documents. The district court concluded that neither of Knight’s attorneys was involved in a theft of the documents and neither was in contempt of court because of any contact he may have had with the documents.

The district court concluded that there was no actual conflict between the two attorneys and their client James Knight, and that even if a conflict existed, no prejudice to Knight resulted therefrom. The court specifically found that the conduct of Knight’s trial by his attorneys was unaffected by the knowledge that they, along with others, were under investigation in relation to the missing documents.

Upon review of the supplemental record and briefs of the parties, we find no error in the district court’s determination. In Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 350, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 1719, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980), the Supreme Court stated the test for finding a Sixth Amendment violation on the basis of an attorney’s conflict of interest:

We hold that the possibility of conflict is insufficient to impugn a criminal conviction. In order to demonstrate a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights, a defendant must establish that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance.

The district court applied this test and found that the circumstances upon which the claim of a conflict was based did not affect the performance of the attorneys at the trial.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.