Holloway v. Arkansas

PETITIONER: Winston M. Holloway, et al.
RESPONDENT: State of Arkansas
LOCATION: First Division Circuit Court, Pulaski County

DOCKET NO.: 76-5856
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1975-1981)
LOWER COURT: Arkansas Supreme Court

CITATION: 435 US 475 (1978)
ARGUED: Nov 02, 1977
DECIDED: Apr 03, 1978
GRANTED: Apr 18, 1977

Harold L. Hall - for petitioners
Joseph H. Purvis - for respondent, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court

Facts of the case

On June 1, 1975, three men entered a restaurant in Little Rock, Arkansas, and proceeded to rob and terrorize the five employees. The two female employees were raped. The ensuing police investigation resulted in the arrest of the Winston Holloway, Ray Lee Welch, and Gary Don Campbell. On July 29, 1975, the three defendants were each charged with one count of robbery and two counts of rape. On August 5, the trial court appointed Harold Hall to serve as counsel for all three defendants, and the date was set for their consolidated trial. Prior to the trial, Hall moved for the court to appoint separate counsel for each defendant because he felt, based on information from the defendants, that there would be a conflict of interest in representing their cases together. The trial court declined to appoint separate counsel. Hall renewed the motion before the jury was empaneled, and the court again denied it. The jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed.


Does requiring a single attorney to represent multiple defendants deprive the defendants of their Sixth Amendment right to adequate assistance of counsel?

Media for Holloway v. Arkansas

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - November 02, 1977 in Holloway v. Arkansas

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - April 03, 1978 in Holloway v. Arkansas

Warren E. Burger:

I have the judgment and opinion for court to announce in Holloway against Arkansas and for reasons stated in an opinion of the court filed with the clerk this morning, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arkansas is reversed.

And the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with our opinion.

Mr. Justice Powell joined by Mr. Justice Blackmun and Mr. Justice Rehnquist have filed a dissenting opinion.