Benjamin Arellano Felix is alleged by the government to be a Mexican drug kingpin.  That means he’s somebody the government really wants to convict.  Felix, disinclined to be convicted, retains a lawyer on his behalf named Jan Ronis.  That means the government really wants Jan Ronis off the case.  If he’s the lawyer Felix wants, then he’s the lawyer the government doesn’t want.

From the Los Angeles Times :

Prosecutors allege that lawyer Jan Ronis, who represents Benjamin Arellano Felix, once worked on behalf of a Mexican drug cartel. The judge says the allegations could create the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Federal prosecutors were attempting to get the attorney, Jan Ronis, kicked off the case in part because he allegedly worked on behalf of the Arellano Felix drug cartel to dissuade a witness from cooperating with U.S. law enforcement.

Judge Larry A. Burns said Ronis’ alleged cartel role, while unproven, was sufficient to create an appearance of a conflict of interest, and he also sided with prosecutors who said Ronis’ past representation of a potential witness in the current case posed a conflict.

As it turns out, Judge Burns and Ronis aren’t exactly unknown to each other.

Burns, who has known Ronis for 30 years and tried cases against him when he was a federal prosecutor, described the lawyer as a person of integrity who has always been truthful with him. But Burns said the allegations were an “elephant in the room” that could not be ignored and threatened to turn Ronis’ complicated role into a sideshow that could overwhelm the case.

A person of integrity?  Always truthful?  The government’s “potential” witness claims that Ronis was hired by “a top cartel lieutenant” (are there bottom cartel lieutenants?) who commanded that no one cooperate with the government.  Ronis says he’s crazy.

Ronis, after the hearing, denied the accusations, saying that he had never told the witness that he couldn’t cooperate and had no contact with the cartel lieutenant who allegedly hired him. “There’s no allegation that I ever talked to him or even knew him,” Ronis said.

A person of integrity.  Always truthful.  But the rat says otherwise.

A defendant is entitled to his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and within that right is the limited right to counsel of choice.  It’s a tricky sort of right, critically important to the success of a defense given the nature of trust required to fight it out with the government, and the defendant’s belief that the lawyer at his side has the chops to fight.  But it’s a fragile right, with much potential for disruption.  And the government likes it that way.

This is a variation on the “house counsel” argument used back in the Gotti days when Bruce Cutler was smeared for doing too good a job for the Gambinos.  Whereas house counsel allegations suggest that the lawyer has become a part of the conspiracy, it stems from his representation of various people who are alleged to be joined together in crime, including those who have fallen to the floor and begged the government to let them feed a bit at its trough.

Actual conflicts of interest are one thing, hard to come by in that they reveal too much.  Potential conflicts are the stuff of prosecutorial dreams.  And when there is a cooperator in the backroom, claims of conflict abound.  As here, it takes only unproven and unprovable allegations to smear a defense lawyer.  The rat said so.  And the judge is suddenly overwhelmed by an excess of caution.

Mind you, this isn’t done in fairness to the government.  The government has no right to command that the defendant have a conflict free lawyer.  Oh no, this is for the benefit of the defendant, who might be too ignorant or unduly trusting to realize how his lawyer’s potential conflict could inure to his detriment.  They are only thinking of the defendant.

So Judge Burns is worried about elephants that could turn the trial into a sideshow and deprive Felix of a fair trial.  There is an easy answer, of course, since the judge gets to play gatekeeper at trial and could preclude the issue entirely and keep the prosecution focused on their case against Felix.  But then, that would leave Ronis free to defend Felix, and that wouldn’t do at all.

The problem that Judge Burns is going to have to confront is that he knows Ronis.  He says he’s a man of integrity.  He says he’s always been truthful to him.  And Ronis says, without equivocation, that the snitch is a wrong and it never happened.  Rat v. Lawyer.  Who will Judge Burns “believe”?

This is where Judges get to show how well they can dance.  Watch him shimmy.  Watch him shake.  Yes, that is the quick step combined with the tango.  Didn’t know it could be done, did you?

Judge Burns will not call Ronis a liar.  But he will, with a sad face, announce that he must employ an excess of caution, if for no other reason than to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and disqualify Ronis as attorney for Felix to fulfill his critical judicial duty of assuring that the defendant receives a fair trial, unencumbered by distractions and conflicts that could undermine the legitimacy of the outcome.  He doesn’t want to do this, but he must.  It is the judge’s responsibility to protect the defendant’s constitutional rights.

And, ta da, the defendant’s counsel of choice is gone, and the Constitution is safe. The government can now call it’s first witness.