United States v. Lopez

Jose Orlando Lopez, Antonio Hernandez Escobedo, and Alfredo Tarango Olivas (defendants) were indicted on drug offenses. All three men were represented by counsel: Lopez was represented by Barry Tarlow, Escobedo by James Twitty, and Olivas by Harold Rosenthal. Tarlow believed that Lopez had a viable defense and thus refused to be part of any plea negotiations. Assistant United States Attorney John Lyons, representing the United States (plaintiff) was under the belief that Tarlow was hired by the drug ring in which Lopez was involved and that, although Lopez wanted to negotiate a plea deal, Lopez would not do so in the presence of Tarlow. In an in camera hearing before a magistrate judge, Lyons had Lopez sign a waiver of his right to counsel. Thereafter, Lyons had several meetings with Lopez in which Lyons tried to obtain the names of other individuals involved in the drug ring. Some time later, Lyons informed Rosenthal of the meetings with Lopez. In turn, Rosenthal told Tarlow that Lyons had been meeting with Lopez without his knowledge. Believing that the secret meetings created a conflict, Tarlow withdrew from representing Lopez. Lopez filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, alleging that Lyons violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel as well as applicable rules of professional conduct prohibiting communications with represented parties. Lyons argued that the United States attorney general’s Thornburgh Memorandum exempted him from the requirement to obtain consent from Tarlow before speaking to Lopez.