govinfo:USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cr-00107-313

1 
 
 1 
 2 
 3 
 4 
 5 
 6 
 7 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
Todd Leras, counsel for defendant Daniel Troxell, moves to withdraw from the 17 
representation based on a conflict of interest.  See Mot. Withdraw, ECF No. 2824.  In the 18 
alternative, he requests “an advisory attorney be appointed to review the record and determine 19 
whether a non-waivable conflict of interest exists.”  Id. at 3.  The court held a hearing on 20 
November 12, 2025.  The government, represented by Jason Hitt at the hearing, did not file a 21 
written opposition but made limited arguments in opposition to the motion orally. 22 
As clarified at hearing, Mr. Leras’s motion is based on California Rule of Professional 23 
Conduct 1.7(b).  Under that rule, as applicable here, “[a] lawyer shall not, without informed 24 
written consent from each affected client[1] . . . represent a client if there is a significant risk the 25 
 
1Section 1.7(b) also requires “compliance with paragraph (d),” which in turn requires 
“(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent 
representation to each affected client; (2) the representation is not prohibited by law; and (3) the 
United States of America, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
Daniel Troxell, 
Defendant. 
No. 2:19-cr-00107-KJM 
ORDER 
 
Case 2:19-cr-00107-TLN-AC     Document 2829     Filed 11/13/25     Page 1 of 3
2 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
lawyer’s representation of the client will be materially limited . . . by the lawyer’s own interests.”  
Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.7(b).  Mr. Leras explained at hearing that his motion was prompted by 
what he characterized as a “finding” in a recent court order: that evidence introduced at trial could 
implicate Mr. Troxell in an Aryan Brotherhood conspiracy to murder Mr. Leras himself.  
Mr. Leras believes any such finding is “clearly erroneous,” Mot. Withdraw at 2, but he is 
concerned the order creates at least the appearance of a conflict. 
In the order in question, the court denied Mr. Troxell’s motion for a new trial under Brady 
v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).  See Prev. Order (Oct. 29, 2025), ECF No. 2821 (under seal); 
see also Redacted Order, ECF No. 2828.  Troxell had contended in that motion that the 
government had wrongfully withheld evidence showing his codefendants were planning to 
murder Mr. Leras, and specifically that the government withheld the evidence at a critical time 
that was shortly before Mr. Leras gave his closing argument at trial on Troxell’s behalf.  See Prev. 
Order at 6, 8.  In Mr. Leras’s view, this new evidence could have reinforced his argument at trial 
that Mr. Troxell was not part of the Aryan Brotherhood racketeering conspiracy charged in the 
indictment; if he were, then it would not have targeted Troxell or his attorney.  See id. at 8, 9. 
The court found the government did not violate the Brady rule because, among other reasons, 
Troxell did not show the undisclosed evidence was favorable to him.  See id. at 8–10.  But the 
court did not reach this conclusion because the new evidence might show Mr. Troxell was part of 
a plan to murder Mr. Leras.  Instead, the court explained that if the undisclosed evidence had been 
disclosed at trial, based on everything before the court with respect to the motion for a new trial, 
the government would likely have elicited testimony naming a former gang member and 
cooperating witness as the intended target, not Mr. Leras.  See id. at 9.  The government could 
then have argued—as it signaled it would have in its opposition brief—the murder conspiracy 
actually inculpated Mr. Troxell as much as his codefendants.  See id.  It was this latter 
observation, made in a single sentence, that Mr. Leras says prompted his motion to withdraw.225 
representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client 
represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal.” 
2 Although Mr. Leras’s motion cites lines 9–19 on page 9, he highlighted lines 16–17 
specifically at hearing. 
Case 2:19-cr-00107-TLN-AC     Document 2829     Filed 11/13/25     Page 2 of 3
3 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
See id. at 9:16–17.  The government already had introduced evidence a reasonable jury could 
interpret as demonstrating that Mr. Troxell was within the Aryan Brotherhood’s leadership and 
had used violence to punish gang members who violated its rules.  See id.; see also Order 
(Oct. 29, 2025), ECF No. 2819 (summarizing trial evidence).  As Mr. Leras himself has put it, 
one of the gang’s “cardinal” rules is not to cooperate with law enforcement.  See id. at 3, 8–9.     
Given Mr. Leras’s arguments at hearing on the current motion, the court has carefully 
reviewed, again, its prior order denying the motion for a new trial.  The court is satisfied not only 
that it did not intend to, nor did it, imply in the previous order that Mr. Troxell was part of a plan 
to murder his own lawyer.  To the extent he has read the order differently, Mr. Leras has 
misinterpreted that order.  Nor did the court make any factual findings, nor introduce any 
information or arguments that were not already in the record.  Rather, in explaining its decision, 
the court analyzed arguments the government had made in opposition to Mr. Troxell’s Brady 
motion and the evidence both parties presented.  See, e.g., id. at 8–10, (citing Opp’n New Trial 
Mot. at 5–6, ECF No. 2808-1). 
In sum, the record does not support any conflict of interest that might prevent Mr. Leras 
from continuing to represent Mr. Troxell in this matter, and certainly no new conflict arising from 
a brief passage in a prior court order that justifies allowing withdrawal at such a late date.  The 
motion to withdraw (ECF No. 2824) is denied. 
IT IS SO ORDERED.  
DATED:  November 13, 2025. 20 
Case 2:19-cr-00107-TLN-AC     Document 2829     Filed 11/13/25     Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight