F.2d 474 (11th Cir.) (concluding that the defendant, who was informed of the possible conflict, and who nonetheless indicated that he wanted the attorney to represent him who was also representing his two brothers, consented to joint representation, waiving any ineffectiveness of counsel claim caused by the alleged conflict of interest), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 114 S.Ct. 275, 126 L.Ed.2d 226 (1993); Martinez, 869 P.2d at 524 ("Although ineffective assistance of counsel may be asserted by a defendant when his counsel has been found to have a conflict of interest, it will not be found if the defendant waived his right to conflict-free representation, and if such waiver is made with full knowledge of the actual conflict.”); In re Noday, 125 Cal.App.3d 507, 521, 178 Cal.Rptr. 653, 660 (1981) (<HOLDING>). 2 . But cf. United States v. Swartz, 975 F.2d
holding that the defendant validly waived right to conflictfree representation where the defendant knew a conflict existed its effect on his defense and his right to have other counsel appointed holding that because the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to separate counsel in light of the courts unambiguous advisement that joint representation could present a very substantial conflict so far as his defense is concerned the defendant was precluded from claiming ineffective assistance of counsel due to the conflict of interest that ultimately developed holding that a conflict of interest independent of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel  constitute cause where the conflict caused the attorney to interfere with the petitioners right to pursue his  1 claim holding that defendants claim for ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest was not cognizable on direct appeal holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance due to the alleged conflict of interest because the defendant failed to demonstrate a conflict as nothing was presented to refute the attorneys testimony that his loyalty was to his clients