 By agreement, the name "Murphy" was deleted from the tape and the suppression denied.  The conflict of interest issue was then directly raised and Murphy assured the court that he had gone over the matter repeatedly with Levine and that Levine fully understood that to go ahead would constitute a waiver.  Judge Shadur was not satisfied, and, foreseeing exactly what has now developed, advised the parties that he was going to explore the situation on the record.


7
In August 1983, Levine followed up by filing an affidavit expressing his desire to be represented by Murphy.  By this time, the defense had been supplied with a copy of the taped conversation.  In the affidavit Levine admits his awareness of his taped comments and concedes thator misled by his attorneys, or others, on the basis that no person can serve two masters.  Levine was cautioned that he could not call Murphy as a witness if he retained him as trial counsel.  The trial judge advised that there were a "great many dangers and problems inherent" in the situation, and that what he had covered was not necessarily exhaustive.


9
Following a government suggestion, the court also inquired if Levine might desire to consult independently with some other lawyer or the public defender.  Levine's response was that he had already talked to his family, to both of his attorneys, and also to other attorneys.  He concluded by saying:  "I still would like to go ahead with Mr. Murphy and Mr. Peters.