United States v. Schwarz

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2002 · Evidence

283 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2002)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidenceconflict of interestjury exposure to extrinsic informationsufficiency of the evidenceobstruction of justiceSixth Amendmentconflict-free counselactual conflict

Facts

Schwarz's trial lawyer, Worth, represented him while Worth's new firm had a lucrative retainer agreement with the Policemen's Benevolent Association, which was also implicated in Louima's related civil suit. Schwarz had a strategic interest in arguing that another officer, not he, was the second officer in the bathroom, but Worth instead pursued the theory that Volpe acted alone even after learning that Volpe could exculpate Schwarz and that prior statements implicated Wiese. After the first trial, juror affidavits stated that during deliberations jurors learned extrinsic information that Volpe had pleaded guilty to assaulting Louima in the bathroom with another officer. In the second trial, the government showed coordinated false accounts to investigators, but the only conduct tied to a federal proceeding was Bruder's false statements to federal investigators after receiving a grand jury subpoena for documents.

Issue

Whether Schwarz's first-trial convictions had to be vacated because his attorney labored under an unwaivable actual conflict of interest that adversely affected his representation and because the district court denied a hearing on substantial allegations that jurors were exposed to prejudicial extrinsic information. Whether the evidence in the second trial was sufficient to prove that Schwarz, Bruder, and Wiese conspired to obstruct a federal grand jury proceeding in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1503.

Rule

A defendant claiming denial of conflict-free counsel based on an actual conflict need show only (1) an actual conflict of interest and (2) an adverse effect on counsel's performance, shown by a lapse in representation: a plausible alternative defense strategy that was inherently in conflict with, or not undertaken because of, counsel's other loyalties or interests. A conflict is unwaivable when it is so severe that no rational defendant would knowingly and intelligently desire the attorney's representation. A post-verdict hearing is mandatory when the movant offers clear, strong, substantial, and incontrovertible evidence that a specific, non-speculative impropriety involving extrinsic influence occurred. To prove conspiracy to obstruct justice under §§ 371 and 1503, the government must show an agreement, knowledge or anticipation of a pending judicial proceeding, and specific intent to impede that proceeding; under Aguilar, the conduct relied on must have a nexus to the proceeding such that it is directed at the court or grand jury and has the natural and probable effect of interfering with it.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a criminal assault trial in Chicago, defense lawyer Nolan Price is paid through a lucrative retainer his new firm has with the Metro Transit Officers Guild, which is simultaneously defending a civil suit alleging that multiple guild members jointly attacked the same victim. Price learns before the defense case that another officer, Darius Kent, is prepared to testify that the defendant, Leo Maren, was not in the storage room where the charged beating occurred, but Price instead argues only that the victim invented the presence of any second officer.

If Maren later claims denial of conflict-free counsel, which is the strongest basis for relief?

Explanation. When counsel's interests diverge from the defendant's on a material course of action, an actual conflict exists. Relief follows upon showing adverse effect through a lapse in representation: a plausible alternative defense strategy that was inherently in conflict with, or forgone because of, counsel's other loyalties or interests. The forgone strategy need only be plausible, not certain to succeed, and the defendant need not show ordinary Strickland prejudice. Here, implicating Kent was a plausible alternative that conflicted with counsel's loyalty and financial interest tied to the guild's civil exposure.