Wheat v. United States

Wheat (defendant) and several codefendants were charged in a drug conspiracy; attorney Iredale represented two codefendants, Bravo and Gomez-Barajas (the latter having reached an unapproved plea deal), and two days before trial Wheat sought to substitute Iredale as his own counsel. The prosecution objected on conflict-of-interest grounds, and the district court denied the substitution; Wheat, convicted, appealed through the Ninth Circuit to the Supreme Court.

Whether a defendant has an unqualified Sixth Amendment right to be represented by counsel of his choosing when that attorney has represented other defendants charged in the same criminal conspiracy.