United States v. Luis Iram Miranda
In United States v. Miranda, No. 21-51156 (5th Cir. 2025) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the defendant’s drug-distribution convictions despite his argument regarding his prior waiver of his right to conflict-free counsel.
Background: Miranda and his codefendant were both charged with conspiring and possessing methamphetamine with the intent to distribute it. The codefendant pled guilty and became a Government witness, but Miranda proceeded to trial.
Before trial, the Government filed a motion for a Garcia hearing so the court could advise Miranda about a potential conflict of interest between Miranda and his attorney. As it turned out, that attorney had represented the codefendant in a prior, unrelated federal drug case. Moreover, the attorney had also represented the husband of another potential Government witness. For those reasons, the court asked for a hearing regarding the potential conflicts.
Two weeks later, another attorney entered an appearance as co-counsel for Miranda, and Miranda filed a response to the Government’s motion. Miranda included an affidavit stating that he was aware his attorney had previously represented his codefendant, and if any conflict existed, he waived it knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. The court then ordered that Miranda could keep the same attorney.
On the first day of trial, the court asked Miranda directly about the potential conflict, and Miranda confirmed he knew he had the right to conflict-free counsel. Miranda then confirmed that he waived that right in order to continue with his attorney. During trial, the new co-counsel cross-examined the codefendant and one other witness, but the initial attorney did the bulk of the other work.
Before sentencing, Miranda filed a motion for reconsideration, now arguing that his attorney’s conflict was not waivable and the district court should have held a Garcia hearing. The court denied the motion, holding that any potential conflict was waivable and actually waived by Miranda. It did not decide whether there was any actual conflict.
Issue 1: Was there an actual conflict? Held: No.
To prove a Sixth Amendment violation based on an attorney’s conflict of interest, a defendant must show “(1) that his counsel acted under the influence of an actual conflict; and (2) that the conflict adversely affected his performance at trial.” United States v. Burns, 526 F.3d 852, 56 (5th Cir. 2008). The court is only required to hold a Garcia hearing if there is an actual conflict.
“Only if counsel had to choose between the divergent or competing interests of a former or current client is there an actual conflict.” Burns, 526 F.3d at 856 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). That determination is made based on the specific facts of each individual case.
In Burns, the Fifth Circuit found no actual conflict even though defense counsel had represented a Government witness four years before trial. That representation had been “unequivocally terminated,” the facts and issues of that representation “had no relation” to the current client’s charges, the attorney had not discussed the current case with the prior client, and the attorney had co-counsel cross-examine the former-client witness. Even cross-examination of a former client “is not itself grounds for finding an actual conflict,” although that practice can be used out of an “abundance of caution.”
Here, the record was similar. Miranda could not identify any “plausible defense strategy that was avoided because of the alleged conflict,” and he did not raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel or identify any questions or topics that were avoided at trial because of the conflict. For those reasons, Miranda’s attorney did not have any actual conflict of interest.
Issue 2: Did the district court err by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing into the alleged conflict of interest? Held: No. Because there was no actual conflict, “the district court was not required to conduct a full-fledged Garcia hearing.”