742 F.2d at 1258 (quoting Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 346, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 1717, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980)). Edens failed to raise his Sixth Amendment objection at trial. Therefore, in order to establish his claim now, he must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance. Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 348, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 1718, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980); Selsor v. Kaiser, 22 F.3d 1029, 1032 (10th Cir.1994); United States v. Bowie, 892 F.2d 1494, 1500 (10th Cir.1990). During joint representation, an actual conflict of interest arises if the codefendants’ interests “diverge with respect to a material factual or legal issue or to a course of action.” Cuyler, 446 U.S. at 356 n. 3, 100 S.Ct. at 1722 n. 3; see also Bowie, 892 F.2d at 1500 (<HOLDING>). Edens has the burden of showing specific
holding that to demonstrate that a conflict of interest violated his sixth amendment rights a defendant must establish that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyers performance holding defendant must demonstrate an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyers performance holding that defense counsels performance was adversely affected by an actual conflict of interest if a specific and seemingly valid or genuine alternative strategy or tactic was available to defense counsel but it was inherently in conflict with his duties to others  holding that defendant must demonstrate both that counsel actively represented conflicting interests and that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyers performance to establish a sixth amendment violation holding that counsels dual roles as prosecutor and defense counsel in the same county were inherently antagonistic and thus created an actual conflict of interest that required disqualification