The facts and procedural background of the case, Wheat v. United States, are discussed in detail, along with the reasoning of the Supreme Court. The article argues that a defendant in a Federal Court should be allowed to execute a valid waiver in order to be represented by his choice of counsel, even if that counsel appears to the prosecution to have conflicts of interest in the representation. Additionally, the article discusses how such waivers might be treated on appeal and how they might possible conflict with the Court's majority opinion in the Wheat case. The article points out that freedom of choice for the defendant is a more important consideration than the appearance of a fair trial, noting that the Wheat decision will make it difficult for defendants who wish to present their own defense. 170 footnotes.