Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): board’s determination that former lawyers for the board were not disqualified from representing a property owner regarding a piece of property before the board, when the lawyers had dealt with issues relating to that same property while they were working for the board. The facts and rationale of Brown II are quite different from the facts of the instant case. In Brown II, the zoning board did not oppose its former lawyers’ representation of the property owner about matters that the board considered to be unrelated to the lawyers’ former work for the board — whereas, in the instant ease, the BZA’s position is that Mr. Cassell is working on the same matter about which he advised and represented the BZA. In State ex rel. Keenan v. Hatcher, 210 W.Va. 307, 313, 557 S.E.2d 361, 365 (2001) (<HOLDING>), this Court identified a core principle that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a prosecutor was disqualified from bringing a recidivist proceeding even though the prior offenses in which the prosecutor served as defense counsel were public matters (B) holding that the district court abused its discretion in denying the defendants timely motion for the substitution of the participating prosecutor in order to permit the defense to call the prosecutor as a witness (C) holding that the race of the prosecutor is irrelevant (D) holding counsel must examine public information like prior conviction records prosecutor is likely to use (E) holding parttime prosecutor barred from acting as defense counsel
Output (English): holding that the district court abused its discretion in denying the defendants timely motion for the substitution of the participating prosecutor in order to permit the defense to call the prosecutor as a witness