I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 8 - CT - 0 1 3 4 1 - S CT J ULI US WESL EY KI

KER
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 07/ 22/ 2008 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. ROBER T P . KREBS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: GEORGE COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: PERCY STAN FI ELD AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : LAU RA HO GA N TED DER NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - POST- CO NV I CTI ON RELI EF D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 02/ 17/ 2011 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. KI TCHEN S , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. J ul i us W es l ey K i kerw as convi ct ed by a j ury of the M ar ch 6, 2002, m ur derof hi s w i f e, R e n e e K ik e r, an d se n ten c e d to life im p riso n m e n t. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls w a s a ss ig n e d h is d ir e c t a p p e a l a n d a ff

ir m e d b o th h is c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . K iker v. S tate (

K iker I) , 919 So. 2d 190 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2005)
. T w o year s l at er , a pane l of thi s C our tgr ant ed K i kerl eave to p ro c e e d in th e trial c o u rt o n h is p o st- c o n v ic tio n c laim th a t h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h ts
we r e v i o l a t e d d u e t o h i s tr i a l c o u n s e l ’ s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a wi tn e s s f

o rt h e St a t e . An evi dent i ary hear i ng w as hel d i n the G eor ge C ounty C i r cui tC our t , and the tr i al j udge deni ed

### 2

K ik e r’s p e tit io n . K ik e r a p p e a le d th e d e n ial o f h is p e tit io n , an d th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls
a ff ir m e d
. K iker v. S tate (

K iker II) , 2 0 0 9 W L 3 7 4 0 6 8 5 (M iss . C t. A p p . N o v . 1 0 , 2 0 0 9 ). T h is C our tgr ant ed K i ker ’ s peti t i on f orw r i tof

cert i or ar i
. Fi ndi ng thatK i ker ’ s att orney had a n actual c onf

l i ctof i nt er es t , a nd thatK i kerdi d notw ai ve thatc onf l i ct , w e r ever s e the C our tof A p p ea ls’ d ec isi o n a n d the tri al jud g e’s d en ial o f K iker’s p eti ti o n for p o st- co n v ict ion reli ef. F a cts ¶2
. O n the e v en ing o f M arc h 6 , 2 0 0 2 , K iker’s m o ther ca ll ed the G eo rge C o u n ty S h eriff’s D epart m entt o r eportthats he coul d notgetthr ough t o her son ’s h om e t el ephone. W hen a deputy s her i f

f arr i ved atK i ker ’ s home, he f ound K i kers t andi ng overhi s w i f e’ s dead body h o ld in g th e in s tru m e n t o f h e r d e a th , a fi re a rm . ¶ 3
. K ik e r tes tified a t trial, a ss e rtin g th a t h is w ife ’s d e m ise h a d re su lted fro m a n a c c id e n t. K i kers ai d thatthey had be en ar gui ng w hen R enee cam e af t erhi m w i th a gun, thr eat eni ng t o ki l l hi m . A ccor di ng t o K i ker , Renee w as a cci dent al l y s hotas they w er e s truggl i ng over the gun. I tw as undi s put ed thathe and Renee ha d a tum ul tuo us re l at i ons hi p, and evi dence
w as a d d u ce d that ea ch sp o u se h ad en g ag ed in p h y sical ab u se o f th e o ther. ¶4
. T he onl y di r e c te vi de nc e t o di s pu t e Ki ke r ’ s v e r s i on o f event s came f

r om B obby C raw ford , a jail h o u se in form an t. C raw ford test if ied th at, w h il e th ey w ere in jail tog ethe r, K i kerhad t ol d hi m thathe coul d no l ongerw i ths t and hi s w i fe’ s m i s tr eatm entand had i nt ent i onal l y s hotheri n t he hea d. ¶ 5 . K ik e r w a s re p re se n ted a t trial b y tw o a tto rn e y s, D a rry l H u rt, S r., a n d S id n e y B a rn e tt. D ur i ng H ur t ’ s c r os s - exami nat i on of C r aw f or d, H ur tas ked C r aw f

or d w hetherhe w as under a crim inal i n d ictm en t. T h e p rose cu tor objected , arg u ing that p en d ing crim inal ch arg es w ere

### 3

notadmi s s i bl e f

ori m peac hm entpurpos es underthe M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of E vi dence
. T he p rose cu tor furthe r co m m en ted, “w e w ere also m ad e a w are ea rl ier of a c o n c e rn o f M r. B a rn e tt, th e situ a tio n .” A fte r a b rie f r e p ly a rg u m e n t fro m H u rt, th e p ro se c u to r w ith d re w h is obj ect i on, and the f

ol l ow i ng excha nge occ urr ed, i n the j ury’ s pr es ence : H ur t : A r e you pr es ent l y underan i ndi ctm entf ora cr i m e by the G r and J ury of thi s C ounty? C ra w fo rd : Y

o u ’ll h a v e to a s kmy la w y e rr ig h t th e r e, Mr. B a r n e tt. I am goi ng t o D rug C our tr ehab. H ur t : I w antyou t o ans w erm y ques t i on. Cr a w f or d: I ’ m a ns w e r i ng i t the be s t I c a n. I do n’ t kn ow i t i f [ s i c] w as an i ndi ctm entornot . I know I di d f ourm onths on m y s ent ence and I ’ m goi ng t o a drug r ehab. I ’ m notan educ at ed man. H ur t : B utI ’ m as ki ng you a ques t i on. I ’ m notgoi ng t o ar gue w i th you,

s i r . I ’ m m er el y a s ki ng you a ques t i on, a nd I w oul d l i ke f oryou to a n sw e r it. H a v e y o u b e e n in d icte d b y th e G e o rg e C o u n ty G r and J ury f

ora cr i m e? C raw ford : Y es, sir
. H ur t : A nd w hati s thatcr i m e f orw hi ch you’ ve bee n i ndi ct ed? C r aw f or d: M anuf

actur i ng. ( E m phas i s added. ) Shor t l y ther eaf t er , H ur tconcl uded hi s cr os s - exami nat i on of C r aw f or d. ¶6. B eyo nd C raw ford ’s in-co u rtstatem ent that B arnet tw as hi s at t orney, not hing el se appea r s i n the r ecor d on di r ectappea l r egar di ng B arnett ’ s r epr es ent at i on of both K i kerand C r aw f or d. W hen K i kert es t i f i ed i n hi s def

ens e, hi s att orneys did n otas k hi m aboutthe
c o n fe ss io n h e a lleg e d ly h a d m a d e to C ra w fo rd w h ile th e tw o w e re in jail. C ra w fo rd c o u ld

### 4

n o t r ec all w h en h e w as in jai l w ith K iker, an d , othe r th an C raw ford ’s t esti m o n y , the re co rd does noti ndi cat e w hetherC r aw f or d and K i kerw er e i n f acti ncar cer at ed atthe s ame t i m e. ¶7. T he sam e at t orneys, B arnet t and H urt , repr esent ed K i ker on dir ect app eal
. T he case
w a s a s s ig n e d th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls , w h ic h a ff ir m e d h is c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . K iker I, 919 S o . 2 d 1 9 0 . A s K ik e r’s a tto rn e y o n d ire c t ap p e a l, B a rn e tt se rv e d a s K ik e r’s a d v o c a te u n til at l ea st O ctob er 1 1 , 2 0 0 5 , the d a te o n w h ich th e C o u rto f A p p ea ls affi rm ed K iker’s
c o n v ic tio n . K

iker I, 9 19 S o. 2d 190. E xact l y tw o w eeks l at er , B arnettw as i n the G eor ge C ounty C i r cui tCourtr epr es ent i ng Cra w f or d, a ke y w i tnes s a gai ns tK i ker , on a gui l ty pl ea. T hu s, B arnet t ’s con curr ent r epresent at i on of K i ker and C raw for d w ent on for year s. ¶8. O n N ovember 8, 2007, a panel of thi s C our t gr ant ed, i n part , K i ker ’ s appl i cat i on f or lea v e to p ro c e e d in th e trial c o u rt o n th e p o st-c o n v ictio n iss u e o f “ w h e th e r K ik e r’ s S ix th A m endmentr i ght s w er e vi ol at ed due t o hi s t r i al counse l ’ s re pr es ent at i on of a w i tnes s f ort he S t a t e . ” An e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g wa s h e l d i n t h e Ge o r g e Co u n ty Ci r c u i tCo u r tb e f o r e th e s a me ju d g e w h o h a d p re s id e d o v e r K ik e r’ s tr ia l. ¶9. A tthe pos t - convi ct i on he ar i ng, K i kert es t i f i ed thatBar nettha d been appoi nt ed by the
courtt o r epr es enthi m “a c oupl e of days af t eri thappene d, ” and thatK i ker ’ s f ami l y had hi r ed H u rtsh o rt ly the rea ft er. A cc o rdin g to K iker, he m et w ith bo th att o rne y s sev era l t im es b efo re hi s tr i al and w as t old t hatC r aw f or d w oul d t es t i f

y agai ns thi m . H ow ever , K i kerw as never to ld th a t B a rn e tt also re p re se n ted C ra w fo rd , an d K ik e r c la im e d th a t h e first le a rn e d o f th is conf l i ctw hen C r aw f

or d w as on the w i tnes s s t and. K i kert es t i f i ed thathad he been i nf

or m ed of B arnet t ’s repr esent at i on of C raw for d, he w ou l d n o t ha v e w ai ved the co nfl i ctof i nter est
a n d w o u ld h a v e s o u g h t r e p la c e m e n t c o u n s e l.

### 5

¶10. T he St at e pres ented t w o w i tnes s es atthe pos t - convi ct i on hear i ng: L ee M art i n, the
as s i s t antatt orney gene r al w ho pr os ecut ed K i ker’ s m urdercas e, and K evi n B r adl ey, t he
a ss ista n t d istric t atto rn e y w h o h a n d led th e c h a rg e s a g a in st C ra w fo rd . M a rtin tes tified th a t,
s hor t l y af

t erK i ker ’ s t r i al began, B arnetti nf or m ed the pr os ecut i on and the tr i al j udge thathe
w as r epr es ent i ng C r aw for d on pendi ng, drug- r el at ed cha r ges . W hi l e M art i n agr eed that K i kers houl d have be en made aw ar e of the conf l i ct , ne i therhe northe tr i al j udge had t aken any act i on t o ensur e t hatK i kerw as t i m el y i nf or m ed of t hi s conf l i ct . M art i n t es t i f

i ed thathe d id n o t kn o w o f an y p lea arran g em en t asso ciated w ith C raw ford ’s t esti fyin g ag ains t K iker. ¶11. B radl ey tes t i fi ed conce r ni ng the handl i ng a nd di s pos i t i on of the ch arges against C ra w fo rd , as se rtin g th a t th e p lea d e a l o ffe re d to C ra w fo rd w a s n o t in e x c h a n g e fo r h is t es t i m ony a gai ns tK i ker
. C r aw f or d w as i ndi ct ed on J une 18, 2002, f orpo sses si on of
m ethamphet ami ne and pos s es s i on of m ethamphet ami ne pr ecur s or s . O n D ece m ber3, 2002, a benc h w a r r a ntf

orc on t e mptwas i s s ue d f orCr a w f

or d, b utthe warr a ntwas l i f t ed on F eb rua ry 4 , 2 0 0 3 , rou g h ly elev en d ay s after K iker w as in d icte d fo r m u rde r. C raw ford t es t i f i ed i n K i ker ’s tr i al o n J ul y 31, 2003, and as demonstr at ed by hi s t es t i m ony, s eemed conf us ed aboutthe natur e and s t atus of the cha r ges agains thi m and att empt ed t o def ert he q u esti o n to h is l aw y er, B arn ett . O n O ctob er 2 0 , 2 0 0 3 , less than tw o m o n ths a ft er K iker’s tr i al , anotherbench w arr antw as i s s ued f orCra w f or d, buthe w as notarr es t ed unt i l J ul y 19, 2 0 0 5 . O n O c to b e r 2 5 , 2 0 0 5 , w ith B a rn e tt as h is a tto rn e y , C ra w fo rd p led g u ilty to b o th c o u n ts cont ai ned i n t he J une 18, 2002, i ndi ctm enta nd a l s o pl ed gui l ty t o f ai l ur e t o r egi s t eras a s exItis un clea r w h en C ra w fo rd w as c h arg ed w ith fail u re to reg ist er a s a se x o ffen d er. 1 

### Nume rous docum ent s rel at ed t o Crawford’s crim ina l charge s we rere ce ive d int o evi denc e at the po st-convictio n hearin g as State’s Exh ibit 1. Kiker’s attorn ey desig natedthis exh ibit as part o f the reco rd o n ap peal, b ut the Geo rge Co unty Circu it C lerk’s office inclu dedon ly State’s E xh ibit 2 , th e tran script of Craw ford ’s p lea co lloquy , as part of the reco rd o n ap peal. Kike r’ s attor

ney did not ce rtif

y the re cord a s com

ple tepur suant to Mis si ss ippiRule of Ap pellate P rocedure 1 0(b )(5). 6 of f ender
. C r aw f

or d r ece i ved an ei ght
- yearsent ence on eac h of the drug char ges , w i th t hr ee 1 year s t o s erve, and f

i ve yea r s on the f

ai l ur e- t o- r egi s t erchar ge, w i th tw o year s t o s erve. T he
se n ten c e s fo r th e d ru g c h a rg e s w e re o rd e re d to ru n c o n se c u tiv e ly , an d th e se n ten c e fo r h is f ai l ur e t o r egi s t erw as orde r ed t o run conc urr ent l y w i th t he ot hersent ence s , gi vi ng hi m a t ot al of s i x year s t o s erve. C r aw f or d w as or der ed t o be i ncar cer at ed i n a f aci l i ty s epar at e f

r om K i ker an d fr om ano ther m an ag ai nstw ho m he h ad p rovi ded i ncri m i nati ng t est i m on y in a case
un rel at ed to K i ker’ s. ¶12. T he t r i al j udge ent er ed a w r i t t en orde r denyi ng K i ker ’ s pet i t i on f orpo st -convict i on reli ef, f ind ing that “the re w as n o t an a ctua l con fl ictin ex ist en ce a t th e tim e the S tat e’s
w i tnes s B obby C r aw f

or d, t es t i f

i ed dur i ng the murde rtr i al of J ul i us W es l ey K i ker. ” The ju d g e a lso b a se d h is d e c isio n o n fin d in g s th a t: H u rt w a s C ra w fo rd ’s le a d a tto rn e y ; th e S tate di d notof

f era pl ea de al t o C r aw f or d i n excha nge forh i s t es t i m ony; C r aw f or d w as not K iker’s c o d efe n d an t and w as n o t i n v o lved in the m u rde r of R en ee K iker; C raw ford ’s t es t i m ony w as not the “c ent erpol e” of the St at e’ s cas e; and K i ker ’ s att orneys w er e not def i ci entand pr ovi ded ef

f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el
. T he C our tof A ppeal s agr eed w i th t he tr ia l ju d g e ’s re a s o n in g a n d a ff ir m e d th e d e n ia l o f K ik e r’ s p e titio n . K iker II, 2 0 0 9 WL 3740685.M i ssi ssi pp i R ule of P rof essi on al C on du ct1. 7(b) pr ov i des, 2 A l aw yers hal l notr epr es enta cl i enti f the r epr es ent at i on of

thatcl i entm ay be m aterial ly li m it ed b y the law y er' s resp o n sibil it ies to an o ther cli en t or t o a third person, o r by the l aw yer’ s ow n int eres t s unles s the law yer r easona bly bel i eves: ( 1) the r epr es ent at i on w i l l notbe adve r s el y af f ect ed; and ( 2) the cl i enthas gi ven know i ng a nd i nf or m ed cons entaf

t ercons ul t at i on. T he cons ul t at i on s hal l i ncl ude expl anat i on of the i m pl i cat i ons of

the r epr es ent at i on 

### 7 D i s cus s i on ¶13. “I n al l cr i m i nal pr os ecut i ons , the acc us ed s hal l enj oy the r i ght
. . . t o have A s s i s t ance o f C o u n s e l fo r h is d e fe n c e .” U .S . C o n s t. a m e n d . V I. See a l so M iss. C o n st. art. 3 , § 2 6 (“In al l c r i m i nal pr os ecut i ons the ac cus ed s hal l have a r i ghtt o be hea r d by hi m s el f orcouns el , or both .
. . . ”) “[ A ] deptr epr es ent at i on encompas s es tw o b r oad pr i nci pl es : m i ni m um compet ence and l oyal as s i s t ance . ” A rm str o n gv. Sta te , 573 So. 2d 1329, 1331 ( M i s s . 1990) (cit ati o n o m itted). M o reo v er, co n sti tuti o n al gu ara n tees o f du e p roc ess o f l aw req u ir e
u n d iv id e d lo y a lty o f d e fe n s e c o u n s e l. L itt lejo h n v. S ta te , 593 So. 2d 20, 23 ( M i s s . 1992) (c iti n g U .S . C o n st. a m e n d . V ; Alv ar e zv. U . S. , 5 8 0 F . 2 d 1 2 5 1 , 1 2 5 6 (5th C ir
. 1 9 7 8 ) (P or ter
v. U . S. , 2 9 8 F . 2 d 4 6 1 , 4 6 4 (5 th C ir . 1 9 6 2 ))
. See al s o M i s s . C ons t . art . 3, § 14 ( “N o per s on s h a ll b e d e p ri v e d o f l if

e , lib e rt y , o r p ro p e rt y e x c e p t b y d u e p ro c e s s o f l a w .” ). ¶ 1 4
. “ U n d e r o u r s y s te m o f ju risp ru d e n c e , if a la w y e r is n o t o n e h u n d re d p e rc e n t lo y a l to hi s cl i ent , h e fl un ks. ” Little john , 593 So. 2d at22. B eca us e “[ l ] oyal ty i s an es s ent i al el ementi n the l aw yer ’ s r el at i ons hi p t o a cl i ent , ” the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of Pr of es s i on C onduct pr ohi bi ta l aw yer ’ s re pr es ent i ng conf l i ct i ng i nt er es t s w i thoutknow i ng and i nf or m ed cons ent f r om the cl i ent ( s )
. M i s s . R . Pr of’ l C onduct1. 7 & cmt . If an i m perm i s s i bl e conf

l i ctar i s es 2and the adva nt ages and r i s ks i nvol ved. 

### 8 af t erthe l aw yeral r eady has under t aken r epr es ent at i on, t he l aw yershoul d w i thdr aw f r om t he
cas e. M i s s . R . Pr of’ l C onduct1. 7 cmt , 1. 16. “D ef ens e couns el have a n ethi cal obl i gat i on t o avoi d conf

l i c t i ng r e pr e s e nt a t i on s a nd t o a dv i s e the c ou r tpr ompt l y when a c on f l i c tof i nt er es tar i s es dur i ng the cour s e of tr i al
. ” C uylerv. Sulli van , 4 4 6 U .S . 3 3 5 , 3 4 6 , 1 0 0 S . C t. 1 7 0 8 , 6 4 L . E d . 2 d 3 3 3 (1 9 8 0 ). ¶15. W hen a tr i al j udge bec om es aw ar e thatthe acc us ed i s be i ng r epr es ent ed by an att or ney
w ith a n a c tu a l co n flict o f in ter e st, T he tr i al j udge i s unde ra duty t o advi s e the def endantof hi s r i ghtt o s epar at e, in d e p e n d e n t co u n se l. In o rd e r fo r a d e fe n d a n t ef fe c tiv e ly to w a iv e h is rig h t to conf l i ct - f r ee c ouns el , the tr i al j udge s houl d aff i rmat i vel y part i ci pat e i n the w ai verdeci s i on by el i ci t i ng a s t at ementi n the narr at i ve f or m f r om the def end ant i ndi cat i ng thathe f ul l y under s t ands the natur e of the s i tuat i on and has know i ngl y and i nt el l i gent l y m ade the deci s i on t o pr ocee d w i th the c h a lle n g e d c o u n s e l. Little john , 593 So. 2d at25 ( quot i ng Alvar ez5 80 F . 2d at1259- 60) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons o m itt e d ). L ik e w is e , th e p ro se c u tio n h a s a n o b lig a tio n to n o tify th e trial c o u rt w h e n it b e c o m e s a w a re th a t th e d e fe n se a tto rn e y h a s a n a c tu a l co n flict o f in te re st in h is
re p re s e n ta tio n o f t h e a c c u s e d
. I d. ¶16. W hen the ac cus ed i s r epr es ent ed by an a t t orney w i th a n a ctual c onf l i ctof i nt er es t , the
a c c u s e d h a s re c e iv e d in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l as a m a tter o f la w , an d “ re v e rsa l is aut om at i c i r r es pect i ve of a sho w i ng of

pr ej udi ce unl es s [ the ac cus ed] know i ngl y and i nt el l i gent l y w ai ved hi s const i tut i onal r i ghtt o conf l i ctf r ee r epr es ent at i on. ” Arm s tr ong , 573 So. 2d at1335. T hus , the s t andar d s etouti n Str i ckland v. W as hington , 466 U
. S. 668, 694,

### 9

1 0 4 S . C t. 20 5 2 , 8 0 L . E d . 2 d 6 7 4 (1 9 8 4 ), re q u irin g a sh o w in g o f “a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili ty that , butforcouns el ’ s unpr of es s i onal err or s , the r es ul tof the pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di f f er en t , ” i s i na pp l i c a bl e t o c a s e s w he n the de f e nd a nt ’ s a t t orne y “ a c t i ve l y r e pr e s e nt ed conf l i ct i ng i nt er es t s . ” Mi ckens v. T aylor , 535 U
. S. 162, 166, 122 S. C t . 1237, 152 L
. E d. 2d 2 9 1 (2 0 0 1 ). A s th is C o u rt h a s re c o g n iz e d , O nce a n actual conf

l i cti s de m ons tr at ed, a s how i ng of s peci f i c pr ej udi ce i s not n e c e ss a ry , fo r to h o ld o th e rw ise w o u ld e n g a g e a re v iew in g c o u rt in u n re liab le and mi s gui ded s pecul at i on as t o the amountof pr ej udi ce s uf

f er ed by a part i cul ardef

endant
. A n acc us ed’ s cons t i tut i onal r i gh tto e f f ect i ve repr esent at i on of cou nsel i s t oo preci ou s t o all ow such im preci se cal culat i on s. Little john , 593 So. 2d at25 ( quot i ng A lvar ez5 8 0 F . 2 d a t 1 2 5 9 ). ¶17. O n t he otherhand, w hen ther e exi s t ed onl y a pot ent i al c o n flict o f in ter e st a t tria l, a def endantm us tdemonstr at e on appe al that“a c onf l i ctof i nt er estactual l y af

f ect ed the adequa cy of

hi s r epr es ent at i on. ” Mi ck e ns , 535 U
. S. at168 ( quot i ng Sulli van , 446 U
. S. at 348- 49)
. A n exampl e of a pot ent i al conf

l i ctof i nt er es ti s w hen an at t orney undert akes dual
re p re s e n ta ti o n o f c o d e fe n d a n ts w ith o u t a n y o b je c tio n . Sulli van , 446 U
. S. 335. W i thout obj ect i on f

r om def ens e couns el , “t r i al cour t s m ay as s um e ei thert hatm ul t i pl e r epr es ent at i on [ of codef endant s ] ent ai l s no conf l i ctor thatt he l aw yerand hi s cl i ent s know i ngl y acc epts uch
r i s k of conf l i ctas m ay exi s t . ” I

d. at346. ¶18. T her ef

or e, w hether K i ker m us t demonstr at e pr ej udi ce turns on w hether ther e w as an actual , as oppos ed t o a pot ent i al , conf l i ctof i nt er es t . I n the pr es entcas e, by r epr es ent i ng K i kerand a w i tnes s agai ns thi m , B arnettcl ear l y w as “ac t i vely re pr es ent [ i ng] conf l i ct i ng i nt er es t s . ” Mike ns , 5 3 5 U .S . at 1 6 6 . B a rn e tt o w e d a d u ty o f lo y a lty b o th to K ik e r a n d to C r aw f or d, a duty t hatw as i m pos s i bl e t o f ul f i l l i f one of hi s cl i ent s w as of

f er i ng t es t i m ony

### 10

agai ns tthe other
. A s C r aw f or d’ s att orney, B arnettha d the duty t o a dvi s e C r aw f or d, w ho w as f aci ng cr i m i nal char ges of hi s ow n, of

hi s r i ghtagai ns ts el f

- i ncr i m i nat i on. B arnettal s o had the duty t o c ouns el Cra w f or d i n hi s deci s i on of

w hethert o t es t i f

y agai ns tK i ker
. O n the other hand, as K i ker ’ s att orney, B arnettw as c har ged w i th att acki ng C r aw f or d’ s cr edi bi l i ty, w hi ch
w oul d have i ncl uded an i nqui r y i nt o C r aw f or d’ s cr i m i nal backgr ound, and hi s curr ent ci r cumst ance s , w i th w hi ch B arnetts houl d ha ve been i nt i m at el y f ami l i ar . B arnettcoul d not h av e a cted as a ze alou s ad v o ca te for K iker w ith o u t disclos ing info rm ati o n ab o u t C raw ford
w hi ch he ga i ned as C r aw f or d’ s l aw yer . L i kew i s e, B arnettcou l d no thave ac t ed as an advoca t e f

orC r a w f or d a f t e rs e e ki ng , on be ha l f

of K i ke r , t o u nd erm i ne C r aw f or d’ s cr edi bi l i ty. W hetheri tw as H ur tor Bar nettw ho actual l y cr os s - exami ned C r aw f or d dur i ng K i ker ’ s tr i al i s of no cons equenc e. B oth l aw yer s w er e pr es ent , os t ens i bl y w or ki ng t ogetheron behal f of K ik e r. P re s u m a b ly , th e y a ls o h a d w o rk e d to g e th e r i n p re p a ra tio n fo r t ri a l. ¶19. A l though thi s C ourth as nev er dealtw i th thi s s peci f i c s i tuat i on, m any court s have
r i ght l y hel d thatw hen a de f ens e att orney cont empora neousl y repr es ent s a pr os ecut i on
w i tnes s , ther e i s a per se , a c tu a l c o n fl ic t o f in te re s t. S e e e .g ., P eople v. T hom as , 545 N
. E . 2d 645 ( I l l
. 1989) ( “W her e def ens e couns el has r epr es ent ed a St at e’ s w i tnes s , a per se conf l i ct
o f in ter e sts e x ists if th e p ro fe ss io n a l re latio n sh ip b e tw e e n th e a tto rn e y a n d th e w itn e ss is
c o n tem p o ra n e o u s w ith c o u n se l’s re p re se n tatio n o f d e fe n d a n t.”); Com m onw eal th v. Hodge , 43 4 N
. E . 2d 12 46 (M ass. 19 82 ) ( per se denial of eff ect i ve assi st ance of cou nsel w hen defense
c o u n se l’s p a rtn e r re p re se n ted p ro se c u tio n w itn e ss in u n re la ted c iv il m a tter) ; P eople v. S tew art , 51 1 N
. Y . S
. 2d 71 5 (N
. Y . A pp . D i v. 1 98 7) (pr ej ud i ce presum ed w here l aw yer al so rep rese n ted d efe n d an t’ s fathe r i n u n related civil case an d fathe r t esti fi ed ag a inst son ).

### 11

T her ef or e, w e f i nd thatB arnettw as underan actual conf l i ctof i nt er es t , and K i kerneed not demonstr at e any s peci f

i c pr ej udi ce t o hi s def

ens e. ¶20. T he C our t of A ppeal s r ecogni zed that B arnett had a conf l i ct of i nt er es t , but i tagr eed
w ith th e tr ia l ju d g e th a t H u r t’ s r o le a s th e le a d a tto rn e y c u re d th is c o n fl ic t. K iker II , 2009 W L 3740685, at*5. Speci f i cal l y, t he C our tof A ppeal s hel d t hat“[ d] es pi t e B arnett ’ s conf l i ct of i nt er es t , the s i tuat i on w as r emedi ed by H ur t ’ s re pr es ent at i on of K i kerand hi s handl i ng of the vas tm aj or i ty of

the tr i al , i ncl udi ng the q uest i on i ng of C r aw f or d. ” I d. W e di s agr ee. E ven i f one w er e abl e t o di vi ne f r om the r ecor d thatBar nett“pl ayed a negl i gi bl e r ol e i n t he tr i al , ” a j udgm entw hi ch w e do nothave s uf f i ci enti nf or m at i on to m ake, B arnett ’ s conf l i ct
w a s i mput e d t o h i s c oc ou ns e l by vi r tue of the i ra s s oc i a t i on i n the j oi ntun de r t a ki ng of
re p re s e n tin g K ik e r. See M is s . R . P ro f’ l C o n d u c t 1 .1 0
. ¶ 2 1
. Th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a l s a l s o p u t s t o c k i n i t s c o n c l u s i o n th a t “ [ w] h e n Ba rn e t tb e c a me aw ar e of the conf l i ct , he broughti tt o t he at t ent i on of the ci r cui tcour tand t he St at e. ” I d. at *4. Fi r s t , w e ca nnotdi s cern f r om the r ecor d w hen i tw as t hatB arnettbecame aw ar e of the
c o n flict. T h e S ta te d isc lo se d C ra w fo rd ’s n a m e a s a p o ten tial w itn e ss m o n th s b e fo re trial. B a rn e tt sh o u ld h a v e b e e n a w a re o f th e c o n flict th e n . H o w e v e r, h e fa iled to m e n tio n h is
r epr es ent at i on of

the pr os ecut i on w i tnes s unt i l af t erK i ker ’ s tr i al had begun. Fur therm or e, B arnett ’ s ethi cal obl i gat i on w as nots at i s f i ed s i m pl y by i nf

or m i ng the courtand the pr os ecut i on of

the ac tual conf

l i ct . H e had a dut y t o w i thdr aw f r om the ca s e, or , i f

f eas i bl e, to tell K ik e r ab o u t th e co n flict a n d to se e k to o b tain a k n o w in g a n d in fo rm e d w a iv e r fro m h is
c lie n t. M is s . R . P ro f’ l C o n d u c t 1 .7 , 1 .1 6
.

### 12

¶2 2. M or eover , the tr i a l c ou r t i t s e l f ha d a n a f f i r mat i ve du ty, up on be i ng i nf ormed of t he conf l i ct , t o as cert ai n f

r om K i kerhi m s el f

w hetherhe w as aw ar e of t he conf l i ctand i t s i nher ent pr opens i ty t o i m pacthi m adver s el y, and, i f s o, w hethe rK i ker , w i th f ul l aw ar enes s of

t he
c o n flict’s p o ten tial ra m if ic a tio n s, w ish e d to w a iv e th e c o n flict o r o b tain n e w c o u n se l. Little john , 593 So. 2d at25. ¶23. I t i s undi s put ed that K i ker hi m s el f di d not w ai ve thi s actual conf l i ct of i nt er es t . T he tr i al j udge, t he def

ens e att orneys , and the pr os ecut orknew a boutthe conf l i ct , a nd al l of

them f ai l ed i n thei rr es pect i ve du t i es. In the abs ence of a know i ng and i nt el l i gentw ai verf r om K ik e r, p re

ju d ic e is p re s u m e d , a n d w e m u s t r e v e rs e th e c o n v ic tio n a n d re m a n d th e c a s e . I d. ¶ 2 4
. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. W AL L E R, C. J . , CARL S ON AN D G RA VE S , P . J J . , DI CK I NS ON , RA ND OL P H, LA M AR, CHANDL ER AND P I ER CE J J . , CONCUR.