Glasser v. United States
Headline: Court reverses one defendant’s conviction and orders a new trial for him, finding his lawyer was conflicted, while affirming two co-defendants’ convictions so those sentences remain in force.
Holding:
- Orders a new trial for the defendant denied undivided counsel.
- Affirms co-defendants’ convictions so their sentences remain in force.
- Warns judges against appointing one lawyer for potentially conflicting defendants.
Summary
Background
A former assistant U.S. attorney (Glasser), another assistant (Kretske), a private lawyer (Roth), an automobile dealer (Kaplan), and a bondsman (Horton) were tried for a scheme to defraud the United States by “fixing” liquor cases and using payments to influence federal prosecutions. The jury found them guilty; some were jailed, one fined, and one placed on probation. At trial the judge appointed one retained lawyer (Stewart) to represent both Glasser and Kretske after a dispute about counsel, and Stewart then represented both through the long trial.
Reasoning
The Court focused on whether Glasser was denied the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. It found that appointing Stewart to represent both Glasser and Kretske, after the possibility of conflicting interests had been made clear, created a real risk that Glasser did not receive undivided, effective representation. The record showed occasions where Stewart avoided cross-examination and did not press objections that might have helped Glasser, and Glasser did not clearly and intelligently waive the conflict. For those reasons the Court concluded Glasser’s conviction must be set aside and ordered a new trial. The Court also held the convictions of Kretske and Roth were supported by substantial evidence and were not shown to have been prejudiced by the error.
Real world impact
Glasser will get a new trial; Kretske and Roth remain convicted. The opinion warns trial judges against appointing one lawyer to represent co-defendants when conflicts are likely, and stresses preserving an accused person’s right to undivided legal help.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Frankfurter (joined by the Chief) disagreed, arguing Glasser acquiesced and showed no contemporaneous protest, so reversal was unwarranted.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?