FI RST DI VI SI ON

DOYLE, C. J.

, A NDREWS, P. J.

, and RA Y, J.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

M ar ch 30, 2016



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 6 A0 53 2 . EDW A RDS v . THE STATE.

A N D R E W S , Pres i d in g J u d g e.

Den n i s Leo n Ed ward s ap p eal s fro m t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d en i al o f h i s p l ea i n b ar in

wh i ch he co n t en ds t h at t he co n s t i t u ti o n al pro h i bi t i o n a g a i n s t d o ub l e jeo p ard y

p recl u d es ret ri al aft er h i s fi rs t t ri al fo r rap e an d ch i l d m o l es t at i o n en d ed i n a m i s t ri al

.

W e fi n d n o erro r an d affi rm

.

Aft er a ju ry

was i m p an el ed an d s wo rn t o t ry

Ed ward s o n ch arg es o f rap e an d

ch i l d m o les t at i on

, b u t befo re an y ev i d en ce was pres en t ed

, Ed w ard s ’ s d efen s e co u n s el

a n d t h e p ro s ecu t o r b ro u g ht t o t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s at t en t i o n t h at

, d u ri n g t h e t ri al o f t h e

cas e, t h ey ex pect ed defen se co un s el w o u l d h a v e an act u al o r a p o t en ti al co n fl i ct o f

i n t eres t un d er et h i cal s t an d ard s s et fo rt h i n t h e Geo rg ia Ru l es of Pro fes s i o n al

Co n d u c t

. Defen s e co u n s el t o l d t h e co u rt t h at

, i n u n rel at ed p ro ceed i n g s

, h e h adp rev i o u s l y rep res en t ed t h e m o th er o f t h e al l eg ed m o l es tat i o n v i ct im

, th at d uri n g t h e

p ri o r rep res en t at i o n t h e m ot h er d i scl o s ed co n fi d en t i al i n fo rm at i o n t o h i m t h at co u ld

b e u s ed t o im

p each h er i f s h e tes t i fi ed as a wi t n es s d u ri n g t h e tri al

, an d t h at co u n s el

was co n cern ed h e was et h i cal ly p ro h i b it ed fro m u s i ng t h at i nfo r m a t io n t o cro s s

ex am i n e an d i m

p each t h e v ict i m ’ s m o t h er fo r t h e b en efi t o f Ed ward s ’ s d efen s e. Th e

p ro s ecu to r i n fo rm ed th e co u rt t h at

, b as ed o n h i s i n ves t i g at i o n

, th e s tat e ex p ect ed t h e

d efen s e wo u l d cl ai m th at t h e v i ct i m ’ s m o t h er fal s el y p l an t ed t h e i d ea i n t he v i ct i m ’ s

m i n d th at Ed ward s m o l es t ed t h e vi ct i m

, an d t h at t h e s t at e wo u l d res p o n d by

p res en t i ng t es t i m o ny fro m t h e v i ct i m ’ s m o t her refu t i n g t h at cl ai m

. Defen s e co u n s el

t o l d t h e co urt t h at “ [t h e p ro s ecu t o r] an d I h a v e b een t al k i n g ab o u t t h i s co n s t an t l y

,

t ry i n g t o fi g u re o u t wh ere w e’ re g o i n g t o g o wi t h it

, an d we t o l d y o u t h at we t h o u g ht

i t wo u l d be a p ro b l em

. . . . ” W i t h o u t rev eal i n g t he co nfi d en t i al in fo rm at i on

, d efen s e

co u ns el i n fo rm ed th e co urt t h at

, “ [i ] f s o m eo n e k n ew [t h e co nfi d en t i al in fo rm at i o n h e

h ad ac q u i r e d fro m t he v i ct i m ’ s m o t her] an d w an t ed to u s e i t

, i t wo u l d cert ai n l y b e

v ery s t ro n g i m

p each m en t m at eri al .” Gi v en t h e act ual o r p ot en t i al co n fl i ct o f i n t eres t

d es cri b ed b y t h e p ro s ecu t o r an d d efen s e co u n s el

, t h e tri al co u rt gav e d efen s e co u n s el

an o p p o rt u n i t y t o co n fer p ri v at el y wi t h Ed w ard s to d i s cu ss t h e co n fl i ct

. Aft er d efen s e

co u ns el m et wi t h Ed ward s

, co u n s el an d E d ward s i n fo rm ed t h e co u rt t hat Ed ward s h ad

2el ect ed t o wai ve t h e co n fl i ct an d p ro ceed wi t h t h e t ri al wi t h t he u n d ers t an di n g t h at

,

i f t h e v i ct i m ’ s m o t h er t es t i fi ed at t h e t ri a l

, d e f en s e co u ns el co u l d n o t u s e t h e

co n fi d en t i al i n fo rm at io n du ri n g cro s s-ex am in at i o n t o i m p each th e wi t n es s. Ed ward s

d o es n o t cl ai m

, an d n o th i n g i n t h e reco rd sh o w s

, t h at th e vi ct i m ’ s m o t h er wai v ed t h e

co n fl i ct o r co n s en t ed t o th e d i s cl o s u re o r u s e o f th e co n fi d en t i al i n fo rm at i o n. On t h es e

fact s

, t h e t ri al co u rt co n cl u ded

, i n effect

, t h at t he at t em p t ed w ai v er b y Ed ward s d id

n o t cu re t h e p ro b l em

, an d t hat an act u al o r s eri o u s p o te n t i a l c o n fl i ct o f i n t eres t

d i s q u al i fi ed d efen s e co u n sel fro m rep res en t i ng Ed w ard s at t h e t ri al

. Bas ed o n t h es e

co n cl u s i o n s

, t h e t ri al co urt s ua s p o n t e d i s q u al i fi ed d efen s e co u n s e l an d d ecl ared a

m i s t ri al o v er Ed ward s ’ s o b ject i o n

. 1

Ov er fo u r m o n t h s l a t e r, Ed ward s fi l ed a pl ea i n b ar cl ai m in g t h at th e Do u b l e

J eo p ard y Cl au s e b arred a seco n d p ro s ecu t i o n fo r t h e s am e o ffen s es b ecau s e jeo p ard y

h ad at t ach ed i n t h e fi rs t t ri al , an d t h ere was n o m an ifes t n eces s i ty fo r t h e t ri al co u rt

t o d ecl are t h e m i s t ri al

. Th e Do u b l e J e o p a rd y Cl au s e o f t h e Fed eral Co n s t i t u t i o n

(ap p l i cab l e t o t h e st at es t h ro u g h t h e Fo u rt een t h Am en dm en t ) p ro vi d es t h at “ [ n ]o

p ers o n s h al l be su b

j ect f o r t h e s am e o ffen [s ] e t o b e t wi ce p u t i n jeo p ard y o f l i fe o r

1 Al t h o u g h t h e t ri al co u rt h ad al read y su a sp o n t e d ecl ared t h e m i s t ri al

, t h e co u rt

al s o g ran t ed t h e s t at e’ s m o t i o n fo r a m i s t ri al o n t h e s am e b as i s

.

3l i m

b

. . . .” J e o p a r d y a t t a ch es i n a ju ry t ri al wh en t h e ju ry i s i m p an el ed an d s wo rn

.

Ha r vey v. S t a t e

, 2 9 6 Ga. 82 3

, 8 30 (7 7 0 SE2 d 8 4 0) (2 0 15 ). W h ere jeo p ard y h as

at t ach ed a n d t h e t ri al ju d g e d ecl ares a m i s t ri al p ri o r t o v erd ict o v er t h e d efen d an t ’ s

o b ject i on

, th e Do u b l e J eo p ard y Cl au s e d o es n o t bar ret ri al “ w h en ev er, i n [t h e ju d g e’ s ]

o p i n i o n

, t ak i n g al l t h e ci rcu m s t an ces i nt o co n s id erat i o n

, th ere i s a m an i fes t n eces s i t y

fo r [t h e m i st ri al ] .” Ren i co v. Let t

, 5 5 9 U. S. 7 6 6, 7 7 3 -7 7 4 (1 3 0 SCt 1 85 5

, 1 7 6 LE2 d

6 7 8 ) (2 01 0 ) (ci t at i o n an d p un ct u at i o n om i t t ed ). Th e “ ‘ m a n i f e s t neces s i t y ’ s t an d ard

. . . can n o t b e i n t e r p r et ed l i t eral l y

, an d

. . . a m is t ri al is ap p ro p ri at e wh en t h ere is a

‘ hi g h d eg ree’ o f n eces s i t y .” Id

. at 7 7 4 (ci tat i o n an d p un ct u at i o n o m i tt ed ). “ [W ] h et h er

t h e req u i red d eg ree o f neces s it y fo r a m i s t ri al h as been s h o wn i s a m at t er bes t ju d g ed

b y t h e t ri al co u rt .” Ha r vey

, 2 96 Ga. at 8 3 1

. Th e ex i s t en ce of “ m an ifes t n eces s i t y ” i s

d et erm i n ed b y w ei gh i n g th e accu s ed d efen d an t ’ s ri g h t t o h av e hi s t r i a l co m p l et ed

b efo re th e fi rs t t ri er o f fact “ ag ai n s t th e i n t eres t o f t h e pu b li c i n hav i n g fai r t ri al s

d es i g n ed t o en d i n ju s t ju d g m e n t s

. . . . ” Reed v. S t a t e

, 26 7 Ga. 4 82

, 48 4 (4 8 0 SE2 d

2 7 ) (1 9 9 7 ) (ci t at io n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ). A cco rd i n g l y, wh et h er “ m an i fes t

n eces s i t y ” ex i s t s fo r a m i s t ri al i n t h e v ari o u s s it u at i on s wh ich ari s e i n t h e co u rs e o f

a cri m i nal t ri al can n o t be d et erm i n ed b y u s e o f an y m ech an i cal fo rm u l a

, a n d t h e

d eci s i o n i s res erv ed t o t h e “ b r o ad d i s cret i o n ” o f t h e t ri al co urt t ak i n g i n to

4co n si d erat io n al l t h e ci rcu m s t an ces

. Ha r vey

, 2 9 6 G a. at 8 3 1 ; R eed

, 2 6 7 Ga. at 4 8 4.

Th e t ri al co u rt i s n o t req u ired t o e x p l i ci tl y fi nd “ m an i fes t n eces s i t y ,” o r t o s et fo rt h

al l th e fact o rs wh i ch i n fo rm ed i t s ex erci se o f d i s cret i on

, b u t “ t h e reco rd m u s t s h o w

t h at t h e t ri al co u rt act u al l y ex erci s ed i t s di s cret i on ” t o d ecl are a m i s t ri al

. Ha r vey

, 2 9 6

Ga. at 8 32

.

Fo r t h i s reas on

, we h av e i n s t ru ct ed t ri al co u rt s t o g i v e c a r e f u l

, d el i b erat e, an d s t u d i o us co n s i d erat i o n to wh et h er t he ci rcu m s tan ces

d em an d a m is t ri al

, wi t h a k een ey e t o ward o t h er, l es s d ras t i c,

al t ern at i v es

. . . . W h ere i t i s cl ear fro m t h e reco rd t h at t h e tr i al co u rt

act u al l y ex erci s ed i t s d is cret i o n i n d eci d i ng t o g ran t a m i st ri al

, th e

Do u bl e J eo p ard y

Cl au s e g en eral l y

wi l l n o t b ar ret ri al

.

Ha r vey

, 2 9 6 Ga. at 8 32 (ci t at io n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

Th e reco rd s u p p o rt s t he t ri al co u rt ’ s refu s al t o accep t Ed ward s ’ s at t em p t ed

wai v er o f h i s d efen se co u ns el ’ s co n fl i ct o f i n t eres t

, an d t he co u rt ’ s co n cl u s i on t h at an

a c t u a l o r s eri o us po t en t ial co n fl i ct o f i n t eres t req u i red d is q u al i fi cat i o n of d efen s e

co u ns el

. Al t h o u g h Ed ward s h ad an i n t eres t in co nt i n u i ng t o b e rep res en t ed b y h i s

p u b l i c defen d er d efen s e co u n s el

, wh o i n v es t i g at ed an d p rep ared h i s cas e fo r t ri al

, “ a

d e f e n d a nt d o es n o t h av e a ri g ht t o b e rep res en t ed b y an at t o rn ey wh o i s et h i c a l l y

p ro h ib i t ed fro m d o i n g s o

, m o s t co m m o n l y d u e t o a co nfl i ct o f i n t eres t .” Reg i s t e v.

S t a t e

, 2 8 7 Ga. 5 4 2

, 5 4 4 (6 9 7 SE2 d 8 04 ) (2 0 10 ); Da vi s v. S t a t e

, 26 1 Ga. 2 2 1

, 2 2 2 (4 0 3

5SE2 d 8 0 0) (1 9 9 1 ) (d i s cu ss in g ci rcu m s t an ces u n d er wh i ch i n d ig en t d efen d a n t m ay

as s ert p referen ce fo r co u ns el ). A d efen d an t’ s ch o i ce o f co u n sel “ m ay b e o verco m e n ot

o n l y b y a d em on s trat io n o f act u al co n fl i ct o f i n t eres t b u t b y a s h owi n g o f a s eri ou s

p o t en t i al fo r co n fl i ct .” Hei d t v. S t a t e

, 2 9 2 Ga. 3 4 3

, 34 6 (7 3 6 S E2 d 3 8 4 ) (2 0 1 3 )

(ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed ). Ed ward s co n t en d s t h at t h ere was no need fo r t h e

t ri al co u rt t o d is q ual i fy h i s d efen s e co u n s el b as ed o n co n fl i ct o f i n teres t b ecau s e h e

wai v ed hi s co u n s el ’ s act u al o r p o t en t i al co n fl i ct o f i n teres t

. Bu t “ [t ] h e d efen d an t ’ s

wai v er of h i s at t o rn ey ’ s co n fl i ct o f i n t eres t d oes n ot al way s cu re th e p ro b lem

, b ecau s e

co u rt s hav e an i n d ep en d en t i n t e r e s t i n en s uri n g t h at cri m i n al t ri al s are co n d u ct ed

wi t h i n t h e et h i cal s t an d ard s o f t h e p ro fes s i o n an d t h at leg al p ro ceed i n g s ap p ear fai r

t o al l wh o o b s erv e t h em .” Reg i s t e

, 2 8 7 Ga. at 5 4 4 (ci t at i o n an d p un ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

“ Th e t ri al co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n o n wh et h er an et h i cal req u i rem en t ba rs a l awy er fro m

rep res en t i n g a d efen d an t i s rev i ewed o n ap p eal fo r ab u s e o f d i scret i o n.” Id . at 8 4 4

.

Th e Geo rg i a Ru l es o f Pro fes s i o n al Co nd u ct (s ee St at e Bar Ru l e 4 -1 0 2 ) s et fo rt h

t h e ap p l i cab l e et h ical s t an d ard s

. It i s u n d i s p ut ed t h at Ru l e 1 .6 (a), co n cern i n g

co n fi d en t i al i t y o f i n fo rm at i o n

, i m p o s ed o n d efen s e co u n s el a co n t i n u in g p ro fes s i o n al

o b l i g at i o n t o k eep cert ai n i n fo rm at i o n co n fi d en t i al t h at co u n s el acq u i red fro m h i s

fo rm er cl i en t

, th e v i ct im ’ s m o t h er, d u ri n g p r i o r rep res en t at i o n o f t h e m o t h er i n an

6u n rel at ed m at t er. 2 As t he p ro s ecu t o r an d d efen s e co u n sel i n fo rm ed t he t ri al co u rt

, t h e

s t at e ex p ect ed t o cal l t h e v i ct i m ’ s m o t h er as a wi t n es s i n t h e t ri al to refu t e Ed ward s ’ s

d efen s e, an d t h e co n fi d en ti al i nfo rm at i o n p ro v id ed a s t ro n g b as i s fo r t h e d efen s e t o

i m p each an d at t ack t h e cred i b i li t y o f t h i s wi t n es s fo r t h e s t at e. To p ro t ect t he o n g o i n g

d u t y o f co n fi d en t i al i t y ari si n g fro m t h e fo rm er at t o rn ey -cl i en t rel at i o n s h i p, Ru l e 1

. 9

(c) p r o v i d e s t h a t “ [a] l awy er wh o h as fo rm erl y rep res en t ed a cl i en t i n a m at t er

. . .

s h al l n o t th ereaft er u se i n fo rm at i o n rel at i n g t o t he rep res en t at i o n t o th e d i sad v an t ag e

o f t h e fo rm er cl ien t

. . . [o r] rev eal i n fo rm at i o n rel at i n g t o t he rep res en t at io n

. . . .”

Defen s e co u n s el p ro p o s ed t o res o l v e t h e co n f l i c t b et ween t h e d u t y t o p ro t ect h i s

fo rm er cl i en t ’ s co n fi d en t i al i n fo rm at i on

, an d t he d u t y t o u se t h e i n fo rm at i o n to

zeal ou s l y d efen d hi s cu rren t cl i en t

, b y o bt ai n i n g Ed ward s ’ s co ns en t t o al l ow h i m to

2 Su b s ect i o n (a) o f Ru l e 6 .1 p ro v i d es : “ A l awy er s h al l m ai nt ai n i n co n fi d en ce

al l i n f o r m a t i on g ai n ed i n t he p ro fes si o n al rel at i o ns h i p wi t h a cl i en t

, i n cl u d i n g

i n fo rm at i o n wh i ch th e cl i en t h as req u es t ed to b e h el d i n v i o l at e o r th e d i s cl o s u re o f

wh i ch wo u l d b e em

b arras s i ng o r wo u l d li k el y b e det ri m en t al t o t h e cl i en t

, u n l es s t h e

cl i en t g i v es i n fo rm ed co n s en t

, ex cep t fo r d is cl os u res t h at are i m pl i ed l y au t h o ri zed in

o rd er t o carry o u t t h e rep res en t at i on , o r are req u ired b y t h es e Ru l es o r o th er l aw, o r

b y o rd er o f t h e co u rt .” Th e d u t y o f co n fi d en t i al i t y s et fo rt h i n s ub s ect i o n (a) co n t i n u es

aft er t h e cl i en t -l awy er rel at i o n s h i p h as en d ed

. Ru l e 6 .1 (e). N o t hi n g i n t he reco rd

s h o ws t h at t h e fo rm er cl i en t, t h e v ict i m ’ s m o t her, co n s en t ed t o d is cl o s u re o f t h e

co n fi d en t i al i n fo rm at i o n at i s su e, o r t h at t h e i n fo rm at i o n w as s u b ject t o d i s cl o s u re “ to

carry o u t t h e rep res en tat i o n

, ” o r o t h erwi s e req u i red b y t h e Ru les o f Pro fes s i o n al

Co n d u ct , o t h er l aw, o r b y co u rt o rd er.

7co n ti n u e a s d e f e ns e co u n sel at t h e t ri al wi t h o u t u s i n g th e in fo rm at i o n to cro s s

ex am i n e or i m

peach h i s fo rm er cl i en t as a wi t n es s fo r t h e st at e. Es s en t ial l y

, Ed ward s

at t em p t ed t o wai v e h is ri g h t t o co n fl i ct -free co u ns el u n d er ci rcu m s t an ces wh ere h i s

d efen s e co u n s el ’ s l o y al t i es were d i v i d ed by t h e ab o v e-s tat ed et h i cal d u ti es

. Th e

g en eral ru l e ap pl icab l e t o t h e co n fl i ct of i n t eres t is set fo rt h i n Ru l e 1.7 wh i ch

p ro v id es i n s u b s ect io n (a) t h at : “ A l awy er s h al l no t rep res en t o r co n t i n u e t o rep res en t

a cl i en t i f t h ere i s a s i g n i fi can t ri s k th at t he

. . . l awy er’ s d u t i es t o

. . . a fo rm er cl i en t

. . . wi l l m at eri al l y an d ad v ers el y affect t h e rep res en t at i o n of t h e cl i en t

, ex cep t as

p erm i t t ed i n [s u bs ect i o n ] ( b )

. ” Un d er su b s ect io n (b ) (1 )-(3 ) of Ru l e 1 .7

, a co n fl i ct

d es cri b ed i n su b s ect i on (a) m ay b e wai ved “ b u t o n ly i f b o t h t h e cu rren t an d fo rm er

cl i en ts co n s en t aft er co n s u lt at i o n wi t h th e at t orn ey

, h av e r e cei v ed i n wri t i n g

reas on ab l e an d ad eq u at e i n fo rm at i o n ab ou t t h e m at eri al ri s ks o f [an d reas o n ab l e

av ai l ab l e al t ern at i v es t o ] t h e rep res en t at i o n

, an d h av e b een g i v en t h e op p o rt u n i t y to

co n su l t wi t h i n d ep en d en t co u n s el .” Reg i s t e , 2 8 7 Ga. at 5 4 7

. 3

3 R u l e 1

. 7 (c) (3 ) fu rt h er p ro v i d es th at th e co n fl ict can n o t b e wai v ed b y a n

affect ed cl i en t ’ s i n fo rm ed co n s en t wh ere “ t h e rep res en t at i on

. . . i n v o l v es

ci rcu m s t an ces ren d eri n g i t reas on ab l y u n li k el y t h at t h e l awy er wi l l be ab l e to p ro v i d e

ad eq uat e rep res en t at i o n t o o n e o r m ore o f t h e affect ed cl i en t s .”

8W e fi n d t h at

, p u rs u an t t o t h e rel ev an t et h i cal ru les

, t he t ri al co u rt d i d n o t ab u s e

i t s d i scret i o n by refu s i ng t o accep t t h e at t e m p t ed wai ver o f t he co n fl i ct an d by

d i s q u al i fy i n g d efen s e co u n s el

. Th e reco rd s h ows t hat t h e at t em p t ed wai v er o f t h e

co n fl i ct was in effect i ve b ecau s e i t fai l ed t o co m p ly w i th t h e req u i rem en t s i n Ru l e 1

. 7

(b ). To wai v e t h e co n fl i ct creat ed b y d efen s e co u n s el ’ s d i v i d ed lo y al t i es t o h i s fo rm er

an d cu rren t cl ien t s r e q u i r e d t he i n fo rm ed co ns en t o f b o t h t h e fo rm er cl i en t (t h e

v i ct i m ’ s m o t h er) an d t h e cu rren t cl i en t (Ed ward s). Ru l e 1 .7 (b ); Reg is t e , 2 8 7 Ga. at

5 4 7

. Th ere was n o co ns en t fro m t h e v i ct i m ’ s m o th er. A p art fro m t h e l ack o f co n s en t

fro m d efen s e c o u n s e l’ s fo rm er cl i en t

, t h e co ns en t o b t ai n ed fro m Ed ward s was n ot

“ i n f o rm ed co n s en t ” p u rs uan t to t h e req u irem en ts i n s u b s ect i o n (b ) (1 )-(3 ), w h i c h

req u i re t h at co n s en t b e co nfi rm ed i n wri t in g

, aft er co ns u l tat i o n wi t h t h e lawy er, aft er

recei v i ng i n wri t i ng reas o n ab l e an d ad eq u at e i n fo rm at io n ab o u t t h e m at eri al ri s k s o f

an d av ai l ab l e al t ern at iv es t o t h e rep res en t at i o n

, an d aft er b ei n g gi v en t h e o p p o rt u n i t y

t o co ns u l t wi t h i nd ep en d en t co u ns el

. Al t h o u g h t h e reco rd befo re t h e t ri al co u rt

s h o wed t h at Ed ward s co n su l t ed wi t h h i s d efen se co u ns el ab o ut t h e co n fl i ct p ri o r t o

t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ru l i n g

, n o th in g was p res en ted t o t h e co u rt p ri o r to t h e ru l i n g s h o wi n g

t h at E d ward s co ns en t ed i n wri t i n g

, recei v ed t h e req u i red i nfo rm at i o n i n wri t i n g ab o ut

ri sk s an d al t ern at i v es

, o r h ad t h e o p po rt u n i t y t o co n s u l t wi th i n d ep en d en t co u n s el

.

9Ev i d en ce t h at

, d u ri n g Ed ward s ’ s i n i t ial co n s u l t at io n wi t h h i s p ub l i c d efen d er d efen s e

co u ns el

, h e co n su l ted wi t h an o t h er p u b li c d e f e n d e r f r o m t h e s am e o ffi ce, d i d n ot

s at i s fy t h e req ui rem en t fo r an o p p o rt u n i t y t o co n s u l t wi t h i n d ep en den t co u n s el . See

In r e Fo r ma l Ad

vi s o r y Op i n i o n 1 0 -1

, 2 9 3 Ga. 3 9 7

, 3 9 8 (7 4 4 SE2 d 7 98 ) (2 0 1 3 ). Th e

wri t ten wai v er fi l ed b y Ed w ard s o v er fi v e m o n t h s aft er t h e t ri al co u rt reject ed t h e o ral

wai v er an d d i s qu a l i f

i e d d efen s e co u n s el was un t im el y an d fai l ed t o s at i s fy t h e

req u i rem en t s o f Ru l e 1 .7 (b ).

Th e reco rd s ho wed at leas t a s eri o u s p o t en t i al fo r a co n fl i ct o f i n teres t

, wh i ch

et h i cal l y b arred d efen se co u ns e l f r om rep res en ti n g Ed w ard s at t h e t ri al

. Ru l e 1 .7

.

Ed ward ’ s at t em

pt ed wai v er o f t h e co n fl i ct was i n effect i v e u n der t h e rel ev an t et h i cal

ru l es

, s o t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n o t ab u s e i t s d i s cret i o n by r e f u s i ng t h e w ai v er an d

d i s q u a l i fy i n g d efen s e co u n sel

. In t h e ab s en ce of an effect i ve wai v er o f th e ri g h t to

co n fl i ct -free rep res en t at i o n

, 4 al l o wi n g t h e t ri al t o p ro ceed t o v erd i ct wo u l d h av e

creat ed a s eri o u s p o t en t i al fo r erro r s u ffi ci en t t o al lo w Ed ward s to o b tai n rev ers al o f

4 “ W h ere a co n s ti t u t i o n al ri g h t t o co u n s el ex i s t s

, o u r Si x t h Am en d m en t cas es

h o l d th at t h ere i s a co rrel at i v e ri g h t t o rep res en t at i o n t h at i s free fro m co n fl i ct s o f

i n t eres t .” W

o o d v. Geo rg i a

, 4 50 U. S. 26 1

, 2 7 1 (1 0 1 SCt 1 0 9 7

, 6 7 LE2 d 2 20 ) (1 9 8 1 ).

“ Effect i v e co u n sel i s co u n s el free fro m co n fl i ct s o f in t eres t

. ” Ga r la n d v. St a t e

, 2 8 3

Ga. 2 0 1 , 2 0 2 (6 5 7 SE2 d 8 4 2 ) (2 0 0 8 ).

10an y g u il t y v erd i ct by cl ai m i n g o n ap p eal t h at h e w as p reju d i ced b y t h e c o n f l i c t

. 5

Il li n o i s v. S

omer vi l l e

, 4 1 0 U. S. 4 58

, 4 6 4 (9 3 SCt 10 6 6, 3 5 L E2 d 4 25 ) (1 9 7 3 )

(m an i fes t n eces s i ty fo r m is t ri al wh ere v erd i ct of co n v i c t i o n co ul d b e reach ed b ut

wo u l d h av e t o be rev ers ed o n ap p eal d u e to ob v i o u s p ro ced u ral erro r). Becau s e a t ri al

u n d e r th es e ci rcu m s t an ces wo u l d h av e b een i n co n s is t en t w i t h th e pu b l i c i n t eres t i n

a fai r t ri al

, co n d u ct ed i n acco rd an ce wi t h et h i cal s t an d ard s

, d es ig n ed t o en d i n a ju s t

ju d g m en t

, t h e t ri a l co u rt d i d n o t ab u s e i t s d i s cret i on b y co n cl u di ng t h at “ m an i fes t

n eces s i t y ” ex i s t ed fo r th e m i s t ri al

. It fo l l ows t h at t h e tri al co u rt d i d n o t err b y d en y i n g

Ed ward ’ s s u b s eq u en t p l ea i n b ar.

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . Do yl e, C. J., co n cu r

s . Ra y, J., co ncu r

s i n j u d g men t o n l y

.

5 “ [P] reju d i ce i s p res u m ed ‘ i f t h e d efen d an t d em o n s t rat es t h at co u n sel act i v el y

rep res en t ed co n fl i ct i n g i n t eres t s an d t h at an act u al co n fl i ct o f i nt eres t ad v ers el y

affect ed h i s l awy er’ s p erfo rm an ce.’ Bu r g er [ v. Kemp

, 4 8 3 U. S. 7 7 6

, 7 8 3 (III ) (1 0 7

SCt 3 1 1 4

, 9 7 LE2 d 6 3 8 ) (1 9 8 7 )] .” To lb er t v. S ta t e

, 29 8 Ga. 1 4 7

, 1 5 0

, n

. 4 (7 8 0 SE2 d

2 9 8 ) (2 0 1 5 ).

11