United States v. Lopez
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
4 F.3d 1455 (1993)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
The federal government (plaintiff) charged Jose Lopez (defendant) and Antonio Escobedo in a drug-trafficking conspiracy. Both were held in the same facility awaiting trial. Attorney Barry Tarlow represented Lopez, while attorney James Twitty represented Escobedo. Tarlow told Lopez that Tarlow’s policy was not to negotiate plea deals in exchange for cooperating with the prosecution. When Twitty began negotiating a plea deal for Escobedo, Lopez wanted to be included but did not want to tell Tarlow because Lopez thought Tarlow would no longer represent Lopez if he went to trial. Prosecutor John Lyons asked the magistrate for permission to speak to Lopez, explaining that Lopez was supposedly afraid that someone who was paying Tarlow’s fees would hurt Lopez or his family if Tarlow found out Lopez was cooperating with the government. The magistrate approved Lyons talking to Lopez without Tarlow but said Lopez was not waiving his right to counsel. Tarlow found out and withdrew from representing Lopez. Lopez retained new counsel and moved to dismiss due to prosecutorial misconduct. The district court concluded that Lyons violated the no-contact rule and dismissed the indictments against Lopez. The government appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Poole, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.