co-defendant, who was the defendant’s father. The Seventh Circuit additionally considered that the direct evidence was amply buttressed by the testimony of other witnesses, the defendants were aware that they had made contradictory statements that would be admitted against each other, and there was no allegation that their joint attorney was faced with a conflict of interest in representing the interests of both defendants. See also United States v. Lowry, 971 F.2d 55, 62 (7th Cir.1992) (concluding that there was a valid waiver of the right to conflict-free representation because the defendant had sufficient information to weigh the risks created by the conflict of interest against the benefit of counsel’s experience); United States v. Plewniak, 947 F.2d 1284, 1287-88 (5th Cir. 1991) (<HOLDING>), cert, denied, 502 U.S. 1120, 112 S.Ct. 1239,
holding that the court must consider the adequacy of the inquiry into the conflict the extent of the conflict and the timeliness of the motion holding that the defendant was deprived of his sixth amendment right to counsel where appointed counsels representation presented a conflict of interest holding that there was a valid waiver of defendants right to conflictfree representation despite the courts failure to inform the defendant of the existence of a potential conflict of interest since the defendant was well aware of the factual basis which created the conflict 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 recognizing the conflict