Title: Ex Parte Deerman

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

466 So. 2d 1020 (1985)
Ex parte Ronnie DEERMAN.
(Re Ronnie Deerman v. State).
84-276.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
March 8, 1985.
Michael L. Allsup and Rowan S. Bone, Gadsden, for petitioner.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., for respondent.
SHORES, Justice.
WRIT DENIED.
TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, FAULKNER, ALMON, EMBRY, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
JONES and ADAMS, JJ., dissent.
*1021 JONES, Justice (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I would grant the writ. In my opinion the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in its application of a subjective test to determine "prejudice" under the circumstances of a given conflict of interest.
The issue: Whether the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to advise Deerman of his right to conflict-free counsel after Deerman's retained counsel made it known to the court and Deerman that he also represented the prosecution's chief witness in a pending civil case. In other words, should the trial court have declared a mistrial upon its learning that Deerman's retained counsel represented a prosecution witness in a pending civil litigation?
State and federal precedent clearly indicate that when a lawyer's dual representation of a defendant and a prosecution witness in a criminal trial creates an actual conflict of interest, in the absence of an effective waiver, the trial is fundamentally unfair as a matter of law. Zuck v. Alabama, 588 F.2d 436 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 833, 100 S. Ct. 63, 62 L. Ed. 2d 42 (1979); Pinkerton v. State, 395 So. 2d 1080 (Ala.Crim.App.1980), cert. denied, 395 So. 2d 1090 (Ala.1981) (and the cases cited therein).
An actual conflict has been held to exist when:
Where such an actual conflict of interests exists, a denial of the right to effective assistance of counsel exists under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, without a showing of any specific prejudice. Castillo v. Estelle, 504 F.2d 1243 (5th Cir.1974); Pinkerton v. State, supra. The Castillo court, treating almost identical facts, held that the petitioner was denied effective representation where his counsel, in unrelated civil litigation, was also representing a principal witness for the prosecution. The court stated:
In the present case, Deerman's lawyer also represented the prosecution's chief witness in pending civil litigation. This fact was brought to Deerman's and the court's attention after the jury had retired for deliberations. Deerman had no knowledge of this conflict prior to that time. Therefore, there could have been no effective *1022 waiver. (The Court of Criminal Appeals noted this in its opinion.)
The Court of Criminal Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on whether Deerman was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Upon return, after an evidentiary hearing on remand, the appellate court held:
This is a correct analysis of the law as I understand it. The opinion continues:
This analysis, however, is incorrect; not only is it inconsistent within itself, but it is inconsistent with existing case law, including the Court of Criminal Appeals' own opinion in Pinkerton v. State, supra. The existence of an actual conflict of interest deprives a defendant of the effective representation of counsel as a matter of law, without a showing of specific prejudice.
The confusion between the two quoted portions of the opinion of the Court of Criminal appeals is apparent in its expression to the effect that "presumed prejudice" can be rebutted by a factual showing that the conflict of interest is "slight" as opposed to "actual." This rationale misapplies *1023 the objective test for determining actual conflict of interest. Once this test is applied and actual conflict of interest is a "given" (indeed, this is precisely what the first portion of the Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion finds), any further inquiry into whether, as a matter of fact, counsel did all he could do to defend the accused is inappropriate.
Where all of the circumstances surrounding the relationship of the parties are undisputed, and where the facts meet the objective test for determining actual conflict of interest, as here, it is error to remand to the trial court for a factual determination of whether such conflict prejudiced the defendant. A contrary holding would permit the lawyer, whose conflict is in question, to testify, after the fact, that his dual representation in no way compromised his maximum effort on behalf of his client. Such a subjective test for determining actual conflict of interest asks the wrong question and overlooks the two essential prongs of this rule of disqualification: 1) the appearance of fairness, and 2) the client's right of informed choice.
For these reasons, I would grant the petition and issue the writ.