US v. Gonzalez (below) is a recent Ninth Circuit case arising out of separate convicions of a husband an wife for insurance fraud. The wife's habeas petition alleges ineffective assistance of counsel due to her lawyer's failure to call her husband to testify. The government sought to depose the husband, who then asserted the existence of an express or implied JDA. For a short opinon, it covers a lot of basic issues and might be useful in PR classes on conflicts in criminal practice. It's also a reminder that if you rely upon an implied or oral JDA, the District Court may have the final word on when your JDA ended and what it covered. (And it's a stark reminder that if trash your clunker to get insurance money, using fire to do the job will earn you an extra ten years in jail.) From the summary:
It appears that for at least part of the proceedings, Gonzalez and Paiz were part of a JDA, either express or implied. However, it also appears possible that at some point that arrangement ended, such as when Gonzalez decided to pursue his own self-serving defense and blame Paiz for the crime rather than pursuing a jointly beneficial defense strategy. Therefore, we remand to the district court for an in camera evidentiary hearing to determine if and when the JDA ended, and when the communication at issue here (what Gonzalez would ultimately testify to at Paiz’s trial) was made.