Wheat v. United States
United States Supreme Court
486 U.S. 153, 108 S.Ct. 1692, 100 L.Ed.2d 140 (1988)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Wheat (defendant) and a number of coconspirators were charged with the operation of a drug conspiracy. Eugene Iredale represented two of the coconspirators, Bravo and Gomez-Barajas. Iredale did not represent Wheat, but two days before Wheat’s trial, Wheat moved that he be represented by Iredale. The prosecution objected to Iredale’s representation. Gomez-Barajas had reached a plea agreement, although the agreement had not yet been approved by the court. The district court denied Wheat’s request based on a conflict of interest. Wheat was convicted. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, C.J.)
Dissent (Marshall, J.)
Dissent (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 798,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.