Citation: United States
v.
Kutas
542 .2d 527 (9TH Cir.1976)

Parties: United States, Plaintiff- Appellee
Eva Agnes Kutas, Defendant- Appellant

Facts: Defendant was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Otto R. Skopil, Jr., J., of harboring and concealing, and of conspiracy to harbor and conceal, an escaped federal prisoner, and she appealed. The Court of Appeals, Duniway, Circuit Judge, held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction, that certain testimony did not constitute improper hearsay, that jury instructions were proper, and that defendant was not prejudiced by the fact that her attorney also represented a coconspirator. The evidence was sufficient to support a jury finding that Kutas knowingly harbored and concealed an escaped prisoner.

Prior Proceeding: The court instructed the jury as follows: The words “harbor” and “conceal” refer to any physical act of providing assistance, including food, shelter, and other assistance to aid the prisoner in avoiding detection and apprehension.
*529 In light of the interpretation given to “harbor and conceal” in United States v. Hobson, supra, 519 F.2d at 773-74, the instruction was correct. Issue or Issues: Based on Kutas conviction and sentence why did Ackerman failed to tell her about her rights to a separate counsel and influenced her improperly?

Rule of Law: 9th circuit is that to prevail on its ground, the defendant has the burden of establishing that the joint representation in fact created an actual conflict of interest and prejudiced her defense. See, e. g., United States v. Nystrom, 9 Cir., 1971, 447 F.2d 1350, 1351; Davidson v. Cupp, 9 Cir., 1971, 446 F.2d 642, 643. Kutas argues that we should reject this approach in favor of the District of Columbia Circuit's more “liberal” rule. This suggestion was specifically rejected in