D A 0 9

- 0 2 8 4

I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U

R T O F T H E S T

A T E O F M O N T

A N A

2 0 1 0 M T 2 2 9

S T A T E O F M O N T

A N A

,

P l a i n t i f f a n d A p p e l l e e

,

v

.

A N T H O N Y R O Y S T

. D ENN I S

,

D e f e n d a n t a n d A

p p e l l a n t

.

APPEAL FROM: District Co urt of the Fourth Judicial District,

I n a n d F o r t h e C o u

n t y o f M i s s o u l a

, C a

u s e N o

. D C 2 0 0 7

- 5 0 3

H o n o r a b l e J o h n W

. L a r s o n

, P r e s i d i

n g J u d g e

C O U N S E L O F R E C O R D :

F o r A p p e l l a n t :

C o l i n M

. S t e p h e n s

, S m i

t h & S t e p h e n s

, P

. C

. , M i s s o u l a

, M o n t a n a

F o r A p p e l l e e :

S t e v e B u l l o c k

, M o n t a n a A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l

, S h e r i K

. S p r i g g

, A s s i s t a n t

A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l

, H e l e n a

, M o n t a n a

F r e d V a n V a l k e n b u r g

, M i s s o u l a C o u n t y A t t o r n e y

, M i s s o u l a

, M o n t a n a

F o r A m i c u s C u r i a e A m e r i c a n C i v i l L i b e r t i e s U n i o n o f M o n t a n a F o u n d a t i o n :

E l i z a b e t h L

. G r i f

f i n g

, A C L U o f M o n t a n a F o u n d a t i o n

, M i s s o u l a

, M o n t a n a

S u b m i t t e d o n B r i e f

s : J u l y 2 8

, 2 0 1 0

D e c i d e d : O c t o b e r 2 8

, 2 0 1 0

F i l e d :

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C l e r k October 28 20102

J u s t i c e P a t r i c i a O

. C o t t e r d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t

.

¶ 1 A n t h o n y R o y S t

. D e n n i s a p p e a l s f r o m h i s 2 0 0 9 c o n v

i c t i o n o f f

e l o n y d e l i b e r a t e

h o m i c i d e i n t h e F o u r t h J

u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n M i s s o u l a C o u n t y

. W e a f f i r m

.

ISSUES

¶ 2 We restate the issues St. Dennis presents :

¶ 3 D i d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r w h e n i t r u l e d t h a t t h e M o n

t a n a O f f i c e o f P u b l i c

Defender (OPD) d i d n o t v i o l a t e S t

. D e n n i s ’ c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s b y r e p r e s e n t i n g b o t h S t

.

D e n n i s a n d h i s c o

- d e f

e n d a n t

, D u s t i n S t r a h a n ( S t r a h a

n ) ?

¶ 4 Did the District C ourt abuse its discretion when it denied St. Dennis’ requests for

i mmunity for a proposed

witness?

¶ 5 Did the District Court abuse its discretion in denying S t

. D e n n i s ’ m o t i o n f o r a n e w

t r i a l ?

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 6 O n D e c e m

b e r 6

, 2 0 0 7

, o f

f i c e r s f r o m t h e M i s s o u l a C o u

n t y P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t

r e s p o n d e d t o a c a

l l r e p o r t i n g a n u n r e s p o n s i v

e m a l e l y i n g i n t h e f

o o t p a t h n e a r t h e

C a l i f o r n i a S t r e e t w a l k i n g b r i d g e i n M i s s o u l a

. U

p o n a r r i v a l

, t h e o f f i c e r s s u r m

i s e d t h a t t h e

m a n

, l a t e r i d e

n t i f i e d a s F o r r e s t C l a y

t o n S a l c i d o

, a l o c a

l h o m e l e s s m a n

, h a d s u f f e r e d a

s e v e r e b e a t i n g a n d a p p e a r e d t o b e d e a d

. E m e r g e n c y m e d i c a l p e r s o n n e l

, w h o a r r i v e d

shortly after the police, confirmed that Salcido was dead.

¶ 7 L a t e r t h a

t d a y S t r a

h a n ’ s m o t h e r c a l l e d t h e p o l i c e a n d r e p o r t e d t h a t h e r s o n h a

d

i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t

h e i n c i d e n

t

. S t r a h a n a n d h i s m o t h e r w e r e i n t e r v i e w e d b y o f

f i c e r s o n

t h e a f t e r n o o n o f D e c e m

b e r 6

. T h e o f

f i c e r s i n f o r m e d S t r a h a n o f h i s M

i r a n d a r i g

h t s p r i o r3

t o t h e i n t e r v

i e w

. D u r i n g t h e i n t e r v

i e w

, S t r a h a n t o l d t h e o f

f i c e r s t h a t h e a n d S t

. D e n n i s

h a d b e e n d r i n k i n g h e a v i l y o n t h e p r e v i o u s e v e n i n g a n d w a n d e r e d d o w n t o t h e C a l i f o r n i a

S t r e e t B r i d g

e

. S t r a h a n r e p o r t e d t

h a t t h e y s a w a h o m e l e s s m a n o n t h e f o o t p a t h a n d

S t

. D e n n i s a p p r o a c h e d t

h e m a n a n d i n s t i g

a t e d a f i g h t

. A t t h e t i m e

, S t

. D e n n i s w a s 1 8

y e a r s o l d

, w a s 6 f

o o t 2 i n c h e s t a

l l a n d w e i g h e d 2 0 0 p o u n d s

. S a l c i d o w a s 5 6 y e a r s o l d

,

5 f o o t 4 i n c h e s t a l l a n d w e i g h e d 1 1 3 p o u n d s

. D e s p i t e t h e d i s p a r i t y i n s i z e

, S a l c i d o f o u g h t

b a c k a n d S t r a h a n a d m

i t t e d t h a t h e a s s i s t e d S t

. D e n n i s b y t h r o w i n g a f

e w p u n c h e s a t

S a l c i d o

. A s t h e f

i g h t e s c a l a t e d

, S a l c i d o was knocked to the ground. Strahan told officers

t h a t S t

. D e n

n i s t h e n “ s t o m

p e d ” t h e m a n ’ s h e a d a

t l e a s t t e n t i m e s

. U

n a b l e t o p u l l

S t

. D e n n i s o f

f S a l c i d o

, S t r a h a n t u r

n e d t o l e a v

e

. S t

. D e n n i s f

o l l o w e d

, l e a v

i n g S a l c i d o

lying on the ground.

¶ 8 After Strahan’ s i n t e r v i e w

, t h e o f

f i c e r s w e n t t o S t

. D e n n i s ’ g r a n d m o t h e r ’ s h o u s e

w h e r e S t

. D e n n i s l i v

e d

. T h e g r a n d m o t h e r a l l o w e d t h e o f f i c e r s t o e n t e r a n d s e a r c h h e r

h o m e

. T h e y f

o u n d S t

. D e n n i s h i d i n g i n a b e d r o o m c l o s e t

. S t

. D e n n i s c o o p e r a t e d a n d

p r o v i d e d t h e o f

f i c e r s w i t h t h e c l o t h i n g h e h a d w o r n t h e n i g h t b e f o r e a n d h i s s h o e s

, w

h i c h

a p p e a r e d t o h a v

e b l o o d s t a i n s o n t

h e m

. T h e o f

f i c e r s t o o k t h e s e i t e m s a n d S t

. D e n n i s t o

t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n

. A f

t e r r e c e i v i n g a M i r a n d a w a r n i n g

, S t

. D e n n i s r e f u s e d t o s p e a k t o t

h e

o f f i c e r s w i t h o u

t a n a t t o r n e y p r e s e n t

. T h e o f

f i c e r s a r r e s t e d S t

. D e n n i s a n d t r a n s p o r t e d h i m

t o t h e M i s s o u l a C o u n

t y D e t e n t i o n C e n

t e r

. W h i l e a t t h e D e t e

n t i o n C e n t e r

, S t

. D e n n i s

c a l l e d a f r i e n d u s i n g t h e D e t e n t i o n C e n t e r t e l e p h o n e

. I n m a t e s u s i n g t h e D e t e n t i o n C e n t e r

p h o n e a r e c l e a r l y n o t i f

i e d t h a t p h o n e c a

l l s a r e r e c o r d e d

. D e s p i t e k n o w i n g t h a t h i s4

c o n v e r s a t i o n w a s b e i n g r e c o r d e d

, S t

. D e n n i s r e p e a t e d l y a d m i t t e d t o h i s f

r i e n d t h a t h e h a

d

k i l l e d t h e m a n n e a r t

h e C a l i f o r n i a S t r e e t B r i d g

e

.

¶ 9 On December 18, 2007, the Mis soula County Attorney filed an Information

charging St. Dennis with deliberate homicide in violation of § 45

- 5

- 102(1), MCA, or in

t h e a l t e r n a t i v e

, a c c o u n t a

b i l i t y f o r d e l i b e r a

t e h o m i c i d e

, u n d e r § § 4 5

- 2

- 3 0 1 a n d

4 5

- 5

- 102(1), MCA. Strahan was similarly charge d. O n D e c e m b e r 2 0

, S t

. D e n

n i s

,

r e p r e s e n t e d b y P u

b l i c D e f e n d e r F e r g

u s o n

, e n t e r e d a p l e a o f “ n o t g u i l t y

. ” S h o r

t l y

t h e r e a f t e r a w i t n e s s

, i n i t i a l l y r e f e r r e d t o a s W i t n e s s X ( l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d a s M i c a h B a l d w i n )

,

c a m e forward claiming to have information about Salcido’s death . He offered to talk to

S t

. D e n n i s ’ a t t o r n e y s

, p r o v i d e d h e w a s g r a n t e d i m m u n i t y

. S t

. D e n n i s d i d n o t s e e k

i m m u n i t y f o r W i t n e s s X at that time.

¶ 1 0 A t a F e b r

u a r y 2 8

, 2 0 0 8 s c h e d u l i n g c o n f e r e n c e

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t n o t e d t h a t b o t h

S t

. D e n n i s a n d c o

- d e f

e n d a n t S t r a h a

n w e r e b e i n g r e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e O P D

. T h e c o u r t

i n q u i r e d w

h e t h e r t h i s c r e a t e d a c o n f

l i c t o f i n t e r e s t w i t h i n t h e O P D

. P u b l i c D e f e n d e r ( P D )

Ferguson advised the court that she would consult with her superiors.

¶ 1 1 O n M a r c h 2 7

, 2 0 0 8

, S t a t e R e g i o n a l P u b l i c D e f e n d e r S h e e h y a n d S t a t e C h i e f

P u b l i c D e f

e n d e r H o o d a t t e

n d e d a s c h e d u l e d s t a t

u s c o n f e r e n c e

. S h e e h y a n d H o o d

e x p l a i n e d t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h e p r o c e d u r e f

o r a p p o i n t i n g c o u n s e l f

o r c o

- d e f e n d a n t s

a n d a s s u r e d t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e O P D o p e r a t i n g p r o c e s s d i d n o t c r e a t e c o n f l i c t s

. T h e c o u r t

o r d e r e d t h e O P D t o f

i l e a l e g a l m e m o r a n d u m o n t h e i s s u e

. R e g i o n a l P D S h e e h y f i l e d t h e

m e m o r a n d u m o n A

p r i l 1 0

, 2 0 0 8

. S u

b s e q u e n t l y

, t h e c o u r t i s s u e d a n o r d e r c o n c l u d i n g5

t h a t

, g i v e n t h e c o n f

l i c t p r o t e c t i o n s i n p l a c e a

t O P D

, i t c o u l d c o n

t i n u e t o r e p r e s e n

t b o t h

S t

. D e n n i s a n d S t r a h a

n

.

¶ 1 2 On July 11, 2008, St. Dennis moved for an order granting immunity to Witness X

,

claiming that he had “some very interesting information to add to the alleged events of

December 5/6, 2 0 0 7 ” p e r t a i n i n g t o S t

. D e n n i s a n d S t r a h a n ’ s c h a r g e s

. T h e S t a t e a r g

u e d

t h a t S t

. D e n

n i s w a s n o t e n t i t l e d t o a j u d i c i a l o r d e r c o m p e l l i n g t h e g

o v e r n m e n t t o g

r a n t

i m m u n i t y t o W i t n e s s X

. I

t u r g e d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r

t t o r e q u i r e S t

. D e n n i s t o i d e n t i f y t h e

w i t n e s s and establish that the witness’ testimony would add relevant information about

the incident before granting immunity. I n St. Dennis ’ reply t o the S t a t e ’ s b r i e f

,

S t

. D e n n i s a r g

u e d that § 46

- 15

- 331, MCA, Montana ’ s s t a t u t e g o v e r n i n g i m m

u n i t y

, w a s

c o n t r o l l i n g

. H e o p i n e d t h a t h e h a d s a t i s f i e d t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e s t a t u t e a n d t h e c o u r

t

s h o u l d g r a n t h i s r e q u e s t

. O n A

u g u s t 1 4

, r e l y i n g o n S t a t e v

. H a s k i n s , 255 Mont. 202, 211,

841 P.2d 542, 547 (1992), t he District Court r

u l e d t h a t S t

. D e n n i s h a d “ n o t o f

f e r e d a n y

p r o o f r e g a r d i n g t h e t e s t i m o n y i t w i l l e l i c i t f r o m t h e p r o p o s e d w i t n e s s

, a n d t h i s [ c ] o u r t c a n

n o t [ s i c ] d e t e r m

i n e i f

, a t a m

i n i m u m

, t h e t e s t i m o n y i s r e l e v a n t w i t h o u t f

u r t h e r

information.”

¶ 1 3 The parties were allowed to submit a r e s p o n s e t o t h e c o u r t ’ s o r d e r o n i m m u n i t y

.

S t

. D e n n i s

, u r g i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o r e c o n s i d e r i t s o r d e r

, a s s e r t e d that the court’s

failure to grant immunity to Witness X would violate St. Dennis’ “right to present a

meaningful defense.” On September 10, the court denied St. Dennis ’ r e q u e s t f o r

r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n

. T h e c o u r t n o t e d t h a t w h i l e S t

. D e n n i s h a d o f

f e r e d t o i d e n t i f

y t h e w i t n e s s

i n c a m e r a a n d p r

o v i d e t h e c o u r t w i t h t h e c o m p l e t e r e c o r

d e d s t a t e m e n t o f W i t n e s s X

, S t

.6

D e n n i s h a d n o t p r o p o s e d h o w t h i s r e v i e w c o u l d b e a c c o m p l i s h e d w i t h o u t c r e a t i n g a n

i m p r o p e r e x p a r t e c o m

m u n i c a t i o n

. U l t i m a t e l y

, S t

. D e n n i s r e m o v e d W i t n e s s X f

r o m h i s

t r i a l w i t n e s s l i s t a n d d i d n o t c a l l him as a witness.

¶ 1 4 S t

. D e n n i s ’ t r i a l b e g a n o n J a n u a r y 5

, 2 0 0 9

, i n H i l l C o u n t y

. O n J a n u a r y 8 a r o u n d

4 : 0 0 p

. m

. , a f

t e r b o t h S t

. D e n n i s a n d t h e S t a t e h a d r e s t e d t h e i r c a s e s

- i n

- c h i e f b u t b e f o r e

c l o s i n g a r g

u m e n t s o n J a n u a r y 9

, d e t e c t i v e s w i t h t h e M i s s o u l a P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t

i n t e r v i e w e d t h r e e p e o p l e

, t w o o f w h o m

, S

. E

. W

. a n d P

. W

. , c l a i m e d t o h a v e i n f o r m a t i o n

p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e e v

e n t s surrounding Salcido’s death

. Baldwin was the third interviewee

.

He was picked up after the other two implicated him in Salcido’s beating

. S t

. D e n n i s ’

a t t o r n e y s w e r e n o t t o l d o f t h e i n t e r v i e w s n o r w e r e t h e i n t e r v i e w s t a t e m e n t s m a d e

a v a i l a b l e t o d e f

e n s e c o u n s e l a t t

h a t t i m e

. O n J a n u a r y 9

, t h e j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t

f i n d i n g S t

. D e n n i s g

u i l t y o f d e l i b e r a t e h o m

i c i d e

. C o u n s e l f

o r S t

. D e n

n i s r e c e i v e d c o p i e s

o f t h e i n t e r v

i e w t r a n s c r i p t s o n J a n

u a r y 1 3

.

¶ 1 5 O n F e b r

u a r y 5

, 2 0 0 9

, S t

. D e n n i s m o v e d f o r a n e w t r i a l o n t h e g

r o u n d s t h a t t

h e

S t a t e f a i l e d t o d i s c l o s e t h e e v i d e n c e c o n t a i n e d i n t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s a n d t

h a t s u c h f

a i l u r e

w a s a v i o l a t i o n o f B r a d

y v

. M a r y l a n d

, 3 7 3 U

. S

. 8 3 ( 1 9 6 3 )

. T h e S t a t e o p p o s e d t

h e m o t i o n

a s s e r t i n g t h a t b y t h e t i m e t h e S t a t e t o o k t h e s e w i t n e s s s t a t e m e n t s

, b o t h t h e p r o s e c u t i o n

a n d t h e d e f

e n s e h a d r e s t e d t h e i r c a s e s

, a n d t h e r e f o r e i t w a s n o t o b l i g

a t e d t o d i s c l o s e t

h e

i n t e r v i e w s t o S t

. D e n n i s

. A d d i t i o n a l l y

, t h e S t a t e a v

e r r e d

, S t

. D e n n i s f

a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h a

B r a d y v i o l a t i o n b e c a u s e t

h e e v i d e n c e w a s n o t s u p p r e s s e d b y t h e p r o s e c u t i o n

, i t w a s n o t

f a v o r a b l e t o S t

. D e n n i s

, a n d t h e s t a t e m e n t s w e r e i m m a t e r i a l

.7

¶ 1 6 On March 5, the District Court denied St. Dennis’ motion f or a new trial,

concluding that S.E.W. and P.W. ’s witness statements were hearsay. Moreover, as it

pertained to B a l d w i n ’ s s t a t e m e n t

, t h e c o u r t h e l d t h a

t S t

. D e n n i s c o u l d h a v

e i d e n t i f i e d

B a l d w i n a n d c a l l e d h i m a s a w i t n e s s . As such, St. Dennis could not now claim prejudice

based on lack of access to Baldwin ’ s i n t e r v i e w s t a t e m e n t

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d

t h a t t h e u n d i s c l o s e d s t a t e m e n t s d i d n o t n e g a t e t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l e s t a b l i s h i n g

S t

. D e n n i s ’ i n v

o l v e m e n t i n t h e c r i m e

. T h e r e f o r e

, S t

. D e n n i s d i d n o t s a t i s f y t h e B r a d

y

test, in that he did not adequately demonstrate that “ ‘ there is a reasonable probability’

that the result of the trial would have been different if the statements at issue had been

disclosed to the defense prior to closing arguments.”

¶ 1 7 O n M a r c h 1 7

, 2 0 0 9

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t S t

. D e n n i s

. H e

w a s s e n t e n c e d t o 1 0 0 y e a r s a n d i s n o t e l i g i b l e f o r p a r o l e f

o r 4 0 y e a r s

. S t

. D e n n i s f i l e d a

t i m e l y N o t i c e o f A

p p e a l o n M a y 1 8

, 2 0 0 9

.

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

¶ 1 8 T h i s C o u r t r e v i e w s a d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f a r e q u e s t f o r i m m u n i t y a n d a r

u l i n g

o n a m o t i o n f

o r a n e w t r i a l f

o r a n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n

. H a s k i n s , 255 Mont. at 211, 841

P.2d at 547.

¶ 1 9 S t

. D e n n i s a n d t

h e S t a t e d i s a g

r e e o n t h e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w t h i s C o u r t s h o u l d

u t i l i z e i n r e v

i e w i n g w h e t h e r r e p r e s e n

t a t i o n o f c o

- defendants by the OPD creates a

conflic t o f i n t e r e s t a n d v i o l a t e s a d e f e n d a n t ’ s c o n s t i t u

t i o n a l r i g h t s

. S t

. D e n n i s u r g

e s a

d e n o v o r e v i e w b a s e d o n t

h e c o n s t i t u

t i o n a l i m p o r t a n c e o f a r i g

h t t o c o n f l i c t

- f r e e c o u n s e l

.

H e a s s e r t s t h a t t h i s i s s u e r e s e m b l e s a c l a i m f

o r i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l w h i c h w e8

r e v i e w d e n o v

o

. S t a t e v

. G r e e

n , 2009 MT 1 1 4

, ¶ 1 4

, 3 5 0 M o n t

. 1 4 1

, 2 0 5 P

. 3 d 7 8 9

. T h e

S t a t e

, r e l y i n g o n State v. Glick

, 2 0 0 9 M T 4 4

, ¶ 1 1

, 3 4 9 M o n t

. 2 7 7

, 2 0 3 P

. 3 d 7 9 6

, o p i n e s

w e s h o u l d r e v i e w t h i s i s s u e f o r a n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n

. A s h a v e o t h e r c o u r t s i n s i m i l a r

c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, w e w i l l r e v i e w t h e c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t i s s u e d e n o v o

. S e e S t a t e o f I l l i n o i s

v

. M o r a l e s

, 8 0 8 N

. E

. 2 d 5 1 0

, 5 1 2

- 1 3 ( I l l

. 2 0 0 4 )

.

D I S C U S S I O N

¶20 Did the District Court err w h e n i t r u l e d t h a t t h e O

P D d i d n o t v i o l a t e S

t

. D e n n i s ’

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i

g h t s b y r e p r e s e n t i n g b o t h S t

. D e n n i s a n d h i s c o

- d e f e n d a n t

, D u s t i n

Strahan?

¶ 2 1 T h e O f

f i c e o f t h e S t a t e P u b l i c D e f e n d e r

, c r e a t e d i n 2 0 0 6

, i s t h e f i r s t s t a t e w i d e

p u b l i c d e f

e n d e r s y s t e m i n t h e c o u n t r y

. I t i s d i v i d e d into 11 regions and according to

OPD, is conceptually designed so that each regional office is an “independent law firm

. ”

In this case, St. Dennis was appointed two defense attorneys out of OPD’s Region 2

M i s s o u l a o f

f i c e

. S t r a h a n

, S t

. D e n n i s ’ c o

- d e f e n d a n t

, w a s a p p o i n t e d t w o R e g i o n 1 O P D

a t t o r n e y s

, o n e out of the agency’s Kalispell office and one from the Polson office.

¶ 2 2 In response to the District Court’s inquiry of St. Dennis’ counsel whether the

O P D ’ s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f b o t h d e f e n d a n t s c r e a t e d a c o n f

l i c t o f i n t e r e s t

, t

h e S t a t e C h i e f

P u b l i c D e f

e n d e r R a n d i H o o d a n d S t a t e R e g i o n a l P u b l i c D e f

e n d e r E d S h e e

h y a t t e n d e d a

M a r c h 2 7

, 2 0 0 8 s t a t

u s c o n f e r e n c e

. T h e c o u r

t n o t e d a t t

h i s c o n f e r e n c e t h a t t h e R

u l e s o f

P r o f e s s i o n a l C o n d u c t a p p l y t o c r i m i n a l a n d c i v i l c a s e s

, a n d h a

d l a w y e r s f r o m a s i n g

l e l a w

f i r m w i s h e d t o r e p r e s e n t S t r a h a n a n d S t

. D e n n i s

, t h e y w o u l d h a v e b e e n p r e c l u d e d f

r o m

d o i n g s o b e c a u s e s u c h a c t i o n c o u l d c r e a t e a c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t

. T h e c o u r t a s k e d w h y

s u c h a r u l e d i d n o t a p p l y t o l a w y e r s f r o m t h e O P D

. S h e e h y o f f e r e d t h a t h i s o f

f i c e h a s9

h a n d l e d s e v

e r a l o t h e r c a s e s i n w

h i c h a p o t e n

t i a l c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n c o

- d e f

e n d a n t s h a s

a r i s e n t h r o u g

h r e p r e s e n t a t i o n b y O P D l a w y e r s

. H e e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e r e a r e w r i t t e n

p r o t o c o l s o n h o w t h e s e p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t s a r e h a n d l e d

. O n e s u c h p r o t o c o l

, h e s t a t e d

,

p r e c l u d e s a t t o r

n e y s i n t h e s a m e r e g i o n a l o f f i c e f r o m r e p r e s e n t i n g c o

- defendants. In cases

with co

- defendants, OPD attorneys in separate region s are automatically assigned.

¶ 2 3 I n p r o v i d i n g o t h e r e x a m

p l e s o f p r i v

a c y a n d c o n f

i d e n t i a l i t y p r o t e c t i o n s

, S h e e h y

d e s c r i b e d t o t h e c o u r t t h e m e t h o d o f k e e p i n g c l i e n t b i l l s s e p a r a t e t o e n s u r e

c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y

. H e a l s o n o t e d t h a t l a w y e r s f r o m d i f f e r e n t r e g i o n s d o n o t h a v

e p h y s i c a l

a c c e s s t o O P D o f

f i c e s i n o t h e r r e g i o n s

, u n l e s s g r a n t e d c o n

t r o l l e d a c c e s s f

o r t e m p o r a r y

w o r k a s s i g

n m e n t s

, n o r d o t h e y h a v e c o m p u t e r a c c e s s t o o t

h e r OPD l a w

y e r s ’ f i l e s

. H e

f u r t h e r a s s e r t e d t h a t i n d i v i d u a l a t t o r n e y s d o n o t h a v e a c c e s s t o a n y a t t o r n e y / c l i e n t

p r i v i l e g e i n f o r m a t i o n h e l d b y o t

h e r i n d i v i d u a l a t t o r

n e y s

. H e s t a t e d t h a

t O P D h a s a

c o n f l i c t m a n a g

e r w h o o v e r s e e s p o t e n t i a l c o n f

l i c t s b e t w e e n r e g i o n s a n d a t t o r n e y s

. U n d e r

c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, c l i e n t s a r e a s k e d t o s i g n a w a i v e r

. I f t h e c l i e n t d o e s n o t w i s h t o

s i g n t h e w a i v e r

, a n a t t o r n e y f r o m o u t s i d e t h e O P D o f

f i c e i s a p p o i n t e d

. In the case before

us, St. Dennis and Strahan were not offered waivers because Sheehy knew immediately

of the conflict and handled it by assigning Strahan’s case to attorneys from an other

regional office. A f

t e r S h e e h y ’ s p r e s e n t a t i o n

, t h e S t a t e s u g g e s t e d t h a t O P D f i l e a l e g a l

m e m o r a n d u m t o w

h i c h t h e S t a t e c o u l d r e s p o n d

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s o o r d e r e d a n d o n

April 10, 2008, the OPD filed a legal memorandum.

¶ 2 4 I n h i s m e m o r a n d u m

, S h e e h y a d d r e s s e d a n a n a l o g o u s N e w Y o r k C o u r t o f A p p e a l s

c a s e

. I n P e o p l e v

. W i l k i n s

, 2 6 8 N

. E

. 2 d 7 5 6 ( N

. Y

. 1 9 7 1 )

, t h e N e w Y o r k C o u r t o f A p p e a l s1 0

r e f u s e d t o t r e a

t t h e N e w Y o r k C i t y L e g a l A i d S o c i e t y ( N Y L A S ) a s i t w o u l d a l a w f i r m

.

A t t h a t t i m e

, N Y L A S c o n s i s t e d o f f o u r branches and three units and had approximately

150 lawyers. The New York Court e x p l a i n e d t h a

t w h i l e “ k n o w l e d g e o f o n e m e m

b e r o f a

l a w f i r m w i l l b e i m

p u t e d b y i n f

e r e n c e t o a

l l m e m b e r s o f t h a t l a w f

i r m

, w e d o n o t b e l i e v

e

t h e s a m e r a t i o n a l e s h o u l d a p p l y t o a l a r g e p u b l i c

- d e f

e n s e o r g a n i z a t i o n s u c h a s t h e L e g a l

A i d S o c i e t y

. . . . [ T ] h e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e t h a

t i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g d e f e n d a n t s b e i n g

r e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e s o c i e t y f l o w s f r e e l y w i t h i n t h e o f

f i c e

. . . . ” S h e e h y e x

p l a i n e d t h e

s t a n d a r d s a n d s a f

e g u a r d s t h e M o n t a n a P u b l i c D e f e n d e r C o m m i s s i o n had adopted , which

guaranteed that each r e g i o n a l o f f i c e w a s a s e p a r a t e “ f

i r m ” u n d e r t h e M o n

t a n a R u l e s o f

P r o f e s s i o n a l R e s p o n s i b i l i t y ( M R P R )

, f o r c o n f l i c t s o f i n t e r e s t purposes

. Sheehy urged the

District Court to conclude, as did the New York Court, that there is no “per se conflict of

i n t e r e s t ” w i t h i n t h e O P D

, a n d t h a t t h e a p p o i n t e d a t t o r n e y s f r o m d i f f e r e n t r e g i o n a l o f f i c e s

s h o u l d b e a l l o w e d t o c o n

t i n u e r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e c o

- defendants in this case.

¶ 2 5 The State filed a response to Sheehy’s legal memorandum , asserting there was no

significant risk t hat St. Dennis and Strahan’s representation by the OPD would result “in

any inappropriate exchange of confidential client information or any other such

d e t r i m e n t a l c o n d

u c t t o e i t h e r d e f

e n d a n t

. ” T h u s

, t h e S t a t e h a d n o o b j e c t i o n t o t

h e

c o n t i n u e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f S t

. D e n n i s b y t h e O P D

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t issued its order on

July 2, 2008, instructing OPD to continue representing St. Dennis. The court stated that

it did “not find sufficient evidence of a conflict of interest.” It therefore required nothing

m o r e f r o m t h e p a r t i e s ’ a t t o r n e y s o n t h i s i s s u e

.11

¶ 2 6 On appeal

, St. Dennis claim s that the conflict of interest in his case violated h i s

S i x t h a n d F o u r

t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t r i g

h t s u n d e r t h e U

n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n a n d h i s

A r t i c l e I I

, S e c t i o n 2 4 r i g

h t s u n d e r t

h e M o n t a n a C o n s t i t u

t i o n

. S p e c i f

i c a l l y

, h e asserts that

because both Strahan ’ s a n d h i s a t t o r n e y s w e r e a s s i g n e d

, m a n a g

e d a n d s u p e r v i s e d b y

S h e e h y

, O P D i s a s i n g

l e f i r m a n d

, a s s u c h

, t

h e r e e x i s t e d a n a c t

u a l c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t

b e t w e e n t h e a t t o r n e y s r e p r e s e n t i n g S t r a h a n a n d S t

. D e n n i s

. H e m a i n t a i n s that this actual

conflict adversely affected his representation, as reflected in the disparity of sentences.

S t r a h a n

, w

h o g a v e i n f o r m a t i o n i m

p l i c a t i n g S t

. D e n n i s i n S a l c i d o ’ s d e a t h a n d t e s t i f i e d

a g a i n s t S t

. D e n n i s a t t r i a l

, r e c e i v e d 3 0 y e a r s a t M o n t a n a S t a t e P r i s o n ( M S P ) w i t h 2 5

s u s p e n d e d

, w

h i l e S t

. D e n n i s r e c e i v

e d 1 0 0 y e a r s a t M S P w i t h a p a r o l e r e s t r i c t i o n o f 4 0

y e a r s

. S t

. D e n n i s u r g e s t h e C o u r t t o a d o p t t h e r u l e t h a t j o i n t r e p r e s e n

t a t i o n o f

c o

- d e f e n d a n t s b y p u b l i c d e f

e n d e r s

, a s i n t h i s c a s e

, i s a p e r s e c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t r e q u i r i n g

reversal.

¶ 2 7 The State urges us to consider “the unique nature of public defenders’ offices

, ”

a n d a r g u e s w e s h o u l d r e v

i e w c a s e s r a i s i n g t h e c o n f l i c t i s s u e w i t h i n t h e O P D o f f i c e s o n a

c a s e

- b y

- c a s e b a s i s

. T h e S t a t e p o i n t s o u t t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t h a r d s h i p s w o u l d a r i s e i f t h e

Court adopted a “

per se rule ” t h a t a u

t o m a t i c a l l y c o m

p e l s d i s q u a l i f

i c a t i o n o f o n e p u

b l i c

d e f e n d e r b e c a u s e a n o t h e r p u b l i c d e f e n d e r h a s a l r e a d y b e e n a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t a

co

- defendant.

¶ 2 8 I t i s w e l l

- e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t s a r e g

u a r a n t e e d t h e r i g

h t t o t h e

a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l p u r s u a n t t o t h e S i x t h A m e n d m e n t o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n

a n d A r t i c l e I I

, S e c t i o n 2 4 o f t h e M o n t a n a C o n s t i t u t i o n

. K i l l s O n T o p v

. S t a t e

, 2 0 0 0 M T12

340, ¶ 37, 303 Mont. 164, 15 P.3d 422. Th is right has been interpreted to guarantee the

“ right to conflict

- free representation ” d e r i v i n g f r o m t h e S i x t h A m e n d m e n t a s a p p l i e d t o

t h e s t a t e s b y t h e D u e P r

o c e s s C l a u s e o f t

h e F o u r t e e

n t h Amendment

. State v. Cook

, 1 4 4

I d a h o 7 8 4

, 7 9 1

, 1 7 1 P

. 3 d 1 2 8 2

, 1 2 8 9 ( 2 0 0 7 )

. W e m u s t t h e r e f o r e d e t e r m

i n e w h e t h e r

a l l e g a t i o n s o f a c o n f

l i c t o f i n t e r e s t w i t h i n O P D s h o u l d b e r e v i e w e d u n d e r a per se rule , as

u r g e d b y S t

. D e n n i s

, o r o n a c a s e

- b y

- c a s e b a s i s a s u r g e d b y t h e S t a t e

.

¶ 2 9 The critical di stinction between the per se and the case

- by

- case approach l i e s i n

t h e o b l i g a t i o n i m p o s e d o n t h e d e f

e n d a n t w h o s e e k s r e v

e r s a l b a s e d u p o n a p u r

p o r t e d

c o n f l i c t

. Glick

, ¶ 1 9

, ( c i t i n g C

u y l e r v

. S u l l i v a n

, 4 4 6 U

. S

. 3 3 5

, 3 4 8

- 4 9

, 1 0 0 S

. C t

. 1 7 0 8

,

1 7 1 8 ( 1 9 8 0 ) )

. U

n d e r t h e p e r s e r

u l e

, i f i t i s d e t e r m

i n e d a c o n f

l i c t a c t u a l l y e x i s t s

,

a u t o m a t i c r e v

e r s a l i s t h e r e m e d y w i t h o u t a n y n e e d t o s h o w a d v

e r s e e f f e c t

. U n d e r t h e

c a s e

- by

- case approach, if defendant proves that an actual conflict exist s

, he or she must

t h e n d e m o n s t r a

t e t h a t c o u n s e l ’ s p e r f

o r m a n c e w a s a d v

e r s e l y a f f e c t e d b y t h e c o n f

l i c t

.

M o r a l e s , 808 N.E. 2d at 51 4

- 15

. I f c o u n s e l ’ s p e r f o r m a n c e w a s a d v

e r s e l y a f f e c t e d

,

d e f e n d a n t n e e d n o t d e m o n s t r a t e p r e j u d i c e ; w e w i l l p r e s u m e p r e j u d i c e

. K

i l l s O n T o p

,

¶ 4 5

.

¶ 3 0 I n d e c i d i n g u p o n t

h e a p p r o a c h t o b e t a k e n i n O P D c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t c a s e s

, w e

c o n s i d e r a m o n g o t h e r f

a c t o r s t h e u n i q

u e n a t u r e o f p u

b l i c d e f e n d e r o f f i c e s a s o p p o s e d t o

p r i v a t e l a w f i r m s

. U n l i k e p r i v a t e l a w f

i r m s

, t h e O P D i s a n o t

- f

o r

- p r o f i t p u b l i c e n t i t y w i t h

a s i n g l e s o u r c e o f c l i e n t s e n g

a g e d i n a s i n g

l e t y p e o f l e g a l p r o c e e d i n g

. T h e O P D d o e s n o t

s o l i c i t c l i e n t s o r a c c e p t r e f e r r a l s f r o m t h e p u b l i c

. M o r e o v e r

, t h e a t t o r

n e y s a r e s a l a r i e d

e m p l o y e e s r a t h e r t

h a n p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e p r

o f i t s a n d r e v

e n u e g e n e r a t e d b y a l a w f

i r m

.1 3

People v. C

hristian , 41 Cal. App. 4 th 986, 995 (1996)

. As such, their compensation is not

driven by their success or failure.

¶ 3 1 G i v e n i t s s p a r s e p o p u l a t i o n

, t h e s t a t e o f W

y o m i n g i s s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d t o M o n t a n a

.

T h e W y o m i n g S u p r e m e C o u r t e x p l a i n e d m a n y o f t h e u n i q u e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f p u b l i c

d e f e n d e r o f f i c e s i n i t s s t a t e t h i s w a y :

P u b l i c d e f

e n d e r s w h o a r e s u b

j e c t t o a c o m

m o n s u p e r v i s o r y s t r

u c t u r e

w i t h i n a n o r g

a n i z a t i o n o r d i n a r i l y s h o u l d b e t r e a t e d a s i n d e p e n d e n t f o r

p u r p o s e s o f [ i m

p u t i n g c o n f

l i c t s o f i n t e r e s t ]

. T h e l a w y e r s p r o v i d e l e g a l

s e r v i c e s

, n o t t o t h e p u b l i c d e f e n d e r o f f i c e

, b u t t o i n d i v

i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s

. O r d i n a r i l y

, t h e o f

f i c e w o u l d h a v

e n o r e a s o n t o g

i v e o n e d e f

e n d a n t m o r e

v i g o r o u s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t

h a n o t h e r d e f e n d a n t s w h o s e i n t e r e s t s a r e i n

c o n f l i c t

. Thus, while individual defendants should be represented by

separate members of the defender ’ s o f f i c e

, t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f e a c h

d e f e n d a n t s h o u l d n o t b e i m p u t e d t o o t

h e r l a w y e r s i n a n o f

f i c e w h e r e

e f f e c t i v e m e a s u r e s p r e v

e n t c o m m

u n i c a t i o n s o f c o n f

i d e n t i a l c l i e n t

information between lawyers employed on behalf of individual defendants.

Similarly, there is no financial incentive for attorneys in a public

d e f e n d e r ’ s o f

f i c e t o f a v o r o n e c l i e n t o v

e r a n o t h e r

. T h e p u b l i c d e f e n d e r

d o e s n o t r e c e i v

e m o r e m o n e y i f o n e c l i e n t p r e v a i l s a n d a n o t

h e r d o e s n o t

. A n a s s i s t a n t p u

b l i c d e f e n d e r

, a s a s a l a r i e d g

o v e r n m e n t e m

p l o y e e

, s i m

p l y

d o e s n o t h a v

e t h e f i n a n c i a l i n t e r e s t i n a c a s e t h a t i s i n h e r e n t i n p r i v a t e

p r a c t i c e

. Another reason to a dopt a case

- by

- case inquiry for conflicts of

i n t e r e s t w i t h i n t h e S t a

t e P u b l i c D e f e n d e r ’ s O f

f i c e i s t h a t t o d o o t h e r w i s e

w o u l d n e e d l e s s l y j e o p a r d i z e t h e r i g h t o f i n d i v

i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s t o s k i l l e d

a n d c o m p e t e n t r e p r e s e n

t a t i o n

. As noted by the Illinois Suprem e Court,

“ [ i ] n m a n y i n s t a n c e s t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f s u c h a p e r s e r u l e w o u l d r e q u i r e t

h e

a p p o i n t m e n t o f c o u n s e l w i t h v i r t u a l l y n o e x p e r i e n c e i n t h e t r i a l o f c r i m i n a l

m a t t e r s

, t h u s r a i s i n g

, w i t h j u s t i f i c a t i o n

, t h e q u e s t i o n o f c o m p e t e n c y o f

c o u n s e l

. ”

Bolin v. State of Wyoming

, 1 3 7 P

. 3 d 1 3 6

, ¶ 2 5 ( 2 0 0 6 ) ( c i t i n g A s c h v

. S t a t e o f W y o m i n g

,

6 2 P

. 3 d 9 4 5

, 9 5 3 ( 2 0 0 3 ) )

. I n A s c h

, t h e W y o m i n g c o u r t a l s o n o t e d :

[ I ] t g o e s w i t h o u

t s a y i n g t h a t a n e x

p e r i e n c e d p u

b l i c d e f e n d e r w h o

s p e c i a l i z e s i n c r i m

i n a l d e f e n s e i s a v a l u a b l e a sset within the criminal justice

system, especially to the indigent defendant.

. . . [G] i v e n W y o m i n g ’ s m a n y1 4

s m a l l c o m

m u n i t i e s

, w i t h a l i m

i t e d n u m b e r o f l a w

y e r s

, i t c o u l d b e d i f

f i c u l t

i n m a n y c a s e s e v

e n t o f i n d l o c a l c o u n s e l f

o r a d e f e n d a n t

.

T h e A s c h C o u r t c o n

t i n u e d :

[ A n o t h e r ] r e a s o n t o a v

o i d a n a u

t o m a t i c d i s q u a l i f

i c a t i o n r u l e f o r

i m p u t e d c o n f

l i c t s o f i n t e r e s t a m o n g a s s i s t a n t p u b l i c d e f e n d e r s i s f

i s c a l

. P a y i n g o u t s i d e c o u

n s e l e v e r y t i m e t h e r e a r e m

u l t i p l e d e f

e n d a n t s i n a c a s e

w o u l d

, n o d o u

b t

, b e q u i t e a n e x p e n s e f o r t h e t a x p a y e r s o f t h e s t a t e

. W

h e r e

t h e r e h a s b e e n n o s h o w i n g o f a n a c t u a l c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t

, a n d t h

u s n o

s h o w i n g o f p r e

j u d i c e t o t

h e d e f e n d a n t s

, t h e m i n i m a l b e n e f

i t o f a p e r s e

rule

would not justify the addition al expense. While we can not a nd should not

“ put a price on ” t

h e l e g a l r e p r e s e n t a

t i o n w e p r

o v i d e t o i n d i g

e n t d e f e n d a n t s

,

t h e j u d i c i a l b r a n c h o f g o v e r n m e n t s t i l l h a s a n o b l i g a t i o n t o b e f

i s c a l l y

r e s p o n s i b l e

.

¶ 3 2 F o r t h e s e v

e r a l r e a s o n s n o t e d a b o v e

, w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e b e t t e r a p p r o a c h f o r

a n a l y z i n g p u r

p o r t e d c o n f l i c t s o f i n t e r e s t w i t h i n O P D i s t h e c a s e

- b y

- c a s e a p p r o a c h

. W e

n o w a n a l y z e t h e s p e c i f

i c f a c t s o f t h e c a s e b e f

o r e u s t o d e t e r m

i n e i f a n actual conflict of

interest occurred. Should we find an actual conflict, we would then have to determine

w h e t h e r c o u n s e l ’ s p e r f

o r m a n c e w a s a d v

e r s e l y a f f e c t e d b y t

h e c o n f l i c t

. M o r a l e s , 808

N.E. 2d at 514

- 15

.

¶ 3 3 I n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a n a c t u a

l c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t s e x i s t e d h e r e

, t h e C h r i s t i a n

c a s e p r o v i d e s g

u i d a n c e

. I

n C h r i s t i a n

, C h r i s t i a n a n d J a c k s o n r o b b e d a T a c o B e l l b u t w e r e

q u i c k l y a p p r e h e

n d e d

. T h e y w e r e c h a r g e d w i t h r o b b e r y w i t h a f i r e a r m

. J a c k s o n a n d

C h r i s t i a n b o t h g

a v e i n f o r m a t i o n t o t h e p o l i c e t h a t i m p l i c a t e d t h e o t h e r

. C h r i s t i a n w a s

a s s i g n e d a n a t t o r n e y f

r o m t h e P D o f

f i c e a n d J a c k s o n was appointed one from the

A lternate D e f

e n d e r ’ s O f

f i c e ( A D O )

. L i k e S h e e h y h e r e

, a s u p e r v i s o r y a t t o r n e y w a s t h e

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o v e r s e e r o f b o t h a

t t o r n e y s

. J a c k s o n a r g

u e d t h a t t h i s j o i n t s u p e r v

i s i o n15

created both a potential and an actual conflict of inter est. Christian , 41 Cal. App. 4 th at

991

- 92.

¶ 3 4 T h e A D O i n C a l i f o r n i a w a s c r e a t e d t o r e p r e s e n t i n d i g e n t c r i m i n a l d e f

e n d a n t s

f a c i n g p o t e n t i a l c o n f

l i c t s i t u a t i o n s w i t h t h e P D o f f i c e

. H a v i n g a n a l t e r n a t e d e f e n d e r

o f f i c e a l l o w e d t

h e c o u n t y t o a p p o i n t c o n f

l i c t

- f r e e p u b l i c d e f

e n d e r s r a t h e r t h a n a p p o i n t i n g

p r i v a t e a t t o r n e y s i n c o n f

l i c t s i t u a t i o n s

. W

h i l e t h e A D O w a s f

o r m a l l y a b r a n c h o f t h e P D

o f f i c e

, i t h a d a s e p a r a t e s u p e r v i s i n g a t t o r n e y a n d t

h e P D e x e r c i s e d n o c o n t r o l o r i n f l u e n c e

o v e r t h e c a s e s

. C

h r i s t i a n

, 4 1 C a l

. A

p p

. 4 t h a t 9 9 2

. N o f

i l e s

, n o o f

f i c e s p a c e

, n o

c o n f i d e n t i a l i n f

o r m a t i o n

, a n d n o c o m

p u t e r e q u i p m e n t o r t e l e

p h o n e s y s t e m s w e r e s h a r e d

.

T h e e m p l o y e e s o f b o t h o f

f i c e s w e r e a d v

i s e d t o m a i n t a i n c o n f

i d e n c e s o f i n d i v i d u a l c l i e n t s

a n d n o s e n s i t i v

e i n f o r m a t i o n w a s s h a r e d

. Christian

, 4 1 C a l

. A p p

. 4 t h a t 9 9 2

- 9 4

, a n d

9 9 9

- 1 0 0 1

. W e n o t e t

h a t m a n y o f t h e s a f

e g u a r d s p r e s e n t i n t h e C a l i f o r n i a p u b l i c d e f

e n d e r

s y s t e m ( i

. e

. , s e p a r a t e o f f i c e s

, s e p a r a t e c o m

p u t e r s a n d s t a f

f

, s e p a r a t e p h o n e l i n e s ) are

likewise present in th e OPD.

¶ 3 5 T h e C

h r i s t i a n c o u r t a l s o a

d d r e s s e d t

h e f a c t t h a t o n e a t

t o r n e y a c t e d a s

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o v e r s e e r o f b o t h t

h e P D o f f i c e a n d t h e A D O

. T h e c o u r t n o t e d that he was

a nominal administrator of the ADO and was “not involved in any way in the day

- to

- day

op e r a t i o n o f t h e A D O

. ” C h r i s t i a n , 41 Cal. App. 4 th at 999. The court ultimately held

that there was “no evidence that use of these ‘ethical walls’ ha d been ineffective in

a v o i d i n g c o n f

l i c t s o f i n t e r e s t b e t w e e n t h e P D a n d t h e A D O

. ” C

h r i s t i a n , 41 Cal. App. 4 th

at 999. We likewise conclude that the organization and operation of the OPD

— p r o v i d e d1 6

all protocols are faithfully and strictly followed

— does not, in itself, create an actual

conflict of interest , nor is there any evidence that OPD’s safeguards failed here.

¶ 3 6 Clearly, no system is fool

- proof. A conflict of interest could at some point arise

out of O P D ’ s o p e r a t i o n s

. H o w e v e r

, g i v e n t h e c u r r e n t s t r o n g p r e c a u t i o n s a n d s a f e g u a r d s

,

i n c l u d i n g e t h i c a l w a l l s

, i n p l a c e a t O P D

, d u a l r e p r e s e n

t a t i o n o f c o

- d e f

e n d a n t s b y

a t t o r n e y s i n d i f

f e r e n t o f f i c e s h a s n o t c r e a t e d a n a c t u a l c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t

. I

t i s

i m p e r a t i v e

, h o w e v e r

, t h a t e a c h O P D a t t o r n e y a d h e r e s r i g o r o u s l y t o t h e s e p o l i c i e s a n d

r u l e s

. S h o u l d t

h e p r e c a u t i o n s a n d s a f

e g u a r d s b e i g

n o r e d o r c o m

p r o m i s e d i n a n y w a y

r e s u l t i n g i n a n a c t u a

l c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t a d v

e r s e l y a f f e c t ing counsel’s performance, we

will not hesitate to provide appropriate relief.

¶ 3 7 Having determined that no actual conflict existed, we need not examine counsel’s

performance to determine if such performance was adversely affected by the ostensible

conflict. 1

¶ 3 8 Finally, we note the ACLU filed an amicus curiae brief in this case on behalf of

St. Dennis , arguing that OPD’s dual representation created an actual conflict of interest

.

There are repeated reference s in the ACLU’s brief to letters between a St. Dennis OPD

a t t o r n e y a n d a S t r a

h a n O P D a t t o r

n e y

. T h e s e l e t t e r s a r e u s e d t o b o l s t e r A C L U ’ s a r g u m e n t

t h a t j o i n t r e

p r e s e n t a t i o n b y p u

b l i c d e f e n d e r s o f c o

- d e f

e n d a n t s c r e a t e s c o n f

l i c t s o f i n t e r e s t

.

This Court reviews cases on appeal based upon the c ourt record. We frown upon

“ references in briefs to matters not in the record. Such matters will not be considered by

t h e C o u r t

. ” M

u r p h y v

. S t a t e

, 2 4 8 M o n

t

. 8 2

, 8 4

, 8 0 9 P

. 2 d 1 6

, 1 7 ( 1 9 9 1 )

. I n State v.

1 N o t a b l y

, S t

. D e n n i s h a s f

a i l e d t o i d e n t i f

y a n y s p e c i f

i c d e f i c i e n c y i n h i s a t t o r

n e y ’ s p e r f

o r m a n c e

.1 7

H o r s e m a n , 263 Mont. 87, 93

- 94, 866 P.2d 1110, 1114 (1993), we stated “statements

included in an appella

te brief but which are not in the record will not be considered on

a p p e a l

. ” J

u s t a s a p p e l l a n

t s a n d a p p e l l e e s a r e c o n f

i n e d t o t h e r e c o r d

, s o t o o a r e a m i c i

. W e

t h e r e f o r e d e c l i n e t o c o n s i d e r t h e A CLU’s argument to the extent it relies on factual

information that was not presented to the District Court.

¶ 3 9 D i d t h e D i s t

r i c t C o u r t a b u s e i t

s d i s c r e t i o n w

h e n i t d e n i e d S t

. D e n n i s ’ r e q u e s t s f o r

i m m u n i t y f o r a p r o p o s e d w i t n e s s ?

¶ 4 0 St. Dennis maintains that the court’s denial of his numerous reques ts to grant

immunity to B a l d w i n v i o l a t e d S t

. D e n n i s ’ f e d e r a l a n d s t a t e c o n s t i t

u t i o n a l r i g h t s t o d u e

p r o c e s s a n d t o p r e s e n

t w i t n e s s e s i n h i s o w

n d e f e n s e . He asserts this was an abus e of the

D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s d i s c r e t i o n

. T h e S t a t e c o u n t e r s t h a t S t

. D e n n i s d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h t h a t

B a l d w i n w o u l d b e p r o v i d i n g t e s t i m o n y t h a t w a s i n c r i m i n a t i n g t o him or that he was

unavailable to testify without a grant of immunity. The State opine s that si nce Baldwin

d e n i e d a n y i n v

o l v e m e n t i n S a l c i d o ’ s d e a t h o r o t h e r w r o n g d o i n g b u t f

e a r e d r e t a l i a t i o n i f

h e t e s t i f i e d a g a i n s t S t

. D e n n i s

, B a l d w i n w a n t e d a n o n y m i t y r a t h e r t h a n i m m

u n i t y

. N e i t h e r

p a r t y

, h o w e v

e r

, d i r e c t s u s t o t h e d i s p o s i t i v e s t a t u t e u p o n w

h i c h w e r e s o l v

e t h i s i s s u e

, i

. e

. ,

§ 4 6

- 2 0

- 7 0 1 ( 1 )

, M C A

.

¶ 4 1 S e c t i o n 4 6

- 2 0

- 7 0 1 ( 1 )

, M C A

, e x p r e s s l y s t a t e s :

W h e n e v e r t h e r e c o r d o n a p p e a l c o n t a i n s a n y o r d e r

, r u l i n g

, o r p r o c e e d i n g o f

the trial court against the convicted person a f f e c t i n g t h e c o n v

i c t e d p e r s o n ’ s

s u b s t a n t i a l r i g

h t s o n t h e a p p e a l o f t h e c a u s e

, t o g e t h e r w i t h a n y r e q

u i r e d

o b j e c t i o n o f t h e c o n v

i c t e d p e r s o n

, t h e s u p r e m e c o u r t o n t h a t a p p e a l s h a l l

c o n s i d e r t h e o r

d e r s

, r u l i n g s

, o r p r o c e e d i n g s a n d t h e o b j e c t i o n s t h e r e t o a n d

s h a l l r e v e r s e o r a f f i r m t h e c a u s e o n t

h e a p p e a l a c c o r

d i n g t o t h e s u b s t a n

t i a l

r i g h t s o f t h e r e s p e c t i v

e p a r t i e s

, a s s h o w

n u p o n t h e r e c o r d

. A c a u s e m a y

n o t b e r e v e r s e d b y r e a s o n o f a n y e r r o r c o m m i t t e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t1 8

against the convicted person unless the record shows that the error was

prejudic ial. (Emphasis added.)

¶ 4 2 A s a c k

n o w l e d g e d b y S t

. D e n n i s i n h i s r e p l y b r i e f o n a p p e a l

, t h e r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e

d o e s n o t c o n t a i n t h e i n f o r m a t i o n S t

. D e n n i s a s k e d t h e c o u r t t o r e v i e w i n d e t e r m

i n i n g

whether to grant Baldwin immunity. Without this information, the record does not

establish that the court’s error, if any, was prejudicial. St. Dennis did not call Baldwin as

a witness , nor did he make an offer of proof regarding Baldwin’s proposed testimony. As

a result, we can only speculate as to the contents o f Baldwin’s intended testimony and

have no way of knowing whether the District Court’s denial of immunity and the

resulting a b s e n c e o f B a l d w i n ’ s t e s t i m o n y p r e j u d i c e d S t

. D e n n i s

. U n d e r s u c h

c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, w e w i l l n o t p u t a d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n e r r o r o v e r s p e c u l a t i o n a n d l a c k o f

i n f o r m a t i o n

. S t

. D e n n i s h a s f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h p r e

j u d i c i a l e r r o r ; t h e r e f

o r e

, p u r s u a n t t o

§ 46

- 20

- 701(1), MCA, we will not reverse the District Court’s ruling o n S t

. D e n n i s ’

i m m u n i t y m o t i o n

.

¶ 4 3 Did the District Court abuse its discretion i n n o t g r a n t i n g S t

. D e n n i s ’ m o t i o n f

o r a

n e w t r i a l ?

¶ 4 4 S t

. D e n n i s m o v

e d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f

o r a n e w t r i a l a f

t e r l e a r n i n g t h a t S

. E

. W

. ,

P

. W

. a n d B a l d w i n h a d g i v e n s t a t e m e n t s t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t i n g detectives on the last day of

S t

. D e n n i s ’ t r i a l

. T h e S t a t e d i d n o t n o t i f y S t

. D e n n i s o f t h e i n t e r v i e w s o r p r o v i d e t h e

i n t e r v i e w t r a n s c r i p t s u n t i l a f t e r h e h a d b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f d e l i b e r a t e h o m i c i d e

. S t

. D e n n i s

c l a i m e d

, a m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s

, t h i s w a s a v i o l a t i o n o f h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d u e p r o c e s s r i g h t s

a n d a v i o l a t i o n o f t h e B r a d y t e s t

. T h e S t a

t e c o u n t e r e d t h a

t i t h a d n o d

u t y t o d i s c l o s e t h e

i n t e r v i e w s a s b o t h p a r t i e s h a d r e s t e d t h e i r c a s e s

- i n

- c h i e f b e f o r e t h e i n t e r v

i e w s t o o k p l a c e

.1 9

T h e S t a t e a l s o m a i n t a i n e d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e w a s n e i t h e r e x c u l p a t o r y n o r m a t e r i a l

, n o r h a d

it willfully or inadvertently suppress ed the statements.

¶ 4 5 R e l y i n g o n B r a d

y , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d S t

. D e n n i s ’ m o t i o n

, h o l d i n g t h a t

S t

. D e n n i s h a d n o t s a t i s f i e d t h e p a r

t o f t h e B r a d

y t e s t t h a t r e q u i r e d h i m t o d e m o n s t r a t e

t h a t t h e r e w a s a r e a s o n a

b l e p r o b a b i l i t y t

h a t t h e r e s u l t o f his trial would have been

different if the statements had been disclosed prior to closing arguments.

¶ 4 6 I n 1 9 6 3

, t h e B r a d y S u p r e m e C o u r t e s t a b l i s h e d t h e r u l e t h a t “ s u p p r e s s i o n b y t h e

p r o s e c u t i o n o f e v

i d e n c e f a v o r a b l e t o a n a c c u s e d u p o n r e q u e s t v i o l a t e s d u e p r o c e s s w h e r e

t h e e v i d e n c e i s m a t e r i a l e i t h e r t o g u i l t o r t o p u n i s h m e n t

, i r r e s p e c t i v e o f t h e g o o d f a i t h o r

b a d f a i t h o f t h e p r o s e c u t i o n

. ” B r

a d y

, 3 7 3 U

. S

. a t 8 7

. T h e B r a d y t e s t

, w h i c h h a s b e e

n

e v o l v i n g o v e r f o u r d e c a d e s

, r e q u i r e s a d e f e n d a n t t o p r

o v e t h e e x i s t e n c e o f c e r t a i n s p e c i f i c

f a c t o r s

. I n C o n e v

. B e l l

, 1 2 9 S

. C t

. 1 7 6 9

,

_ _ _ U

. S

.

_ _

_ ( 2 0 0 9 )

, a r e c e n

t U n i t e d S t a t e s

S u p r e m e C o u r t c a s e a d d r e s s i n g B r a d y

, the Supreme Court explain ed:

Although the State is obliged to “ prosecute with earnestness and

vigor, ” it “ i s a s m

u c h [ i t s ] d u t y t o r e f

r a i n f r o m i m p r o p e r m e t h o d s c a l c u l a t e d

t o p r o d u c e a w r o n g f u l c o n v i c t i o n a s i t i s t o u s e e v e r y l e g i t i m a t e m e a n s t o

b r i n g a b o u t a j u s t o n e

. ” A c c o r d i n g l y

, w e h a v

e h e l d t h a t w h e n t h e S t a t e

w i t h h o l d s f

r o m a c r i m i n a l d e f

e n d a n t e v i d e n c e t h a t i s m a t e r i a l t o h i s g u i l t o r

p u n i s h m e n t

, i t v i o l a t e s h i s r i g h t t o d u e p r o c e s s o f l a w i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e

F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t

. I

n U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. B a g l e

y , 473 U.S. 667, 682,

105 S. Ct. 3375, 87 L. Ed. 2d 481 (1985) ( opinion of Blackmun, J.), we

e x p l a i n e d t h a t e v i d e n c e i s “ m a t e r i a l ” w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f B r a d y w h e n

t h e r e i s a r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t

, h a d t h e e v i d e n c e b e e n d i s c l o s e d

, t

h e

r e s u l t o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g w o u l d h a v e b e e n d i f

f e r e n t

. I n o t h e r w o r d s

, favorable evidence is subject to constitutional ly mandated disclosure when

it “ could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light

as to undermine confidence in the verdict. ”

C o n e

, 1 2 9 S

. C t

. a

t 1 7 8 2

- 8 3 ( i n t e r n a

l c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d )

.20

¶ 4 7 I n a n o t h e r r e l a

t i v e l y r e c e n t U

n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t o p i n i o n d i s c u s s i n g

Brady

, t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t s t a t e d “ [ a ] B r

a d y v i o l a t i o n o c c u r s w

h e n t h e g o v e r n m e n t f a i l s

t o d i s c l o s e e v

i d e n c e m a t e r i a l l y f

a v o r a b l e t o t h e a c c u s e d

. T h i s C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t t h e

B r a d y d u t y e x t e n d s t o i m

p e a c h m e n t e v

i d e n c e a s w e l l a s e x c u l p a t o r y e v i d e n c e

, a n d B r a d y

suppression occurs whe n the government fails to t urn over even evidence that is ‘ known

only to police investigators and not to the prosecutor

. ’ ” Y o u n g b l o o d v

. W

. V a

. , 5 4 7 U

. S

.

8 6 7

, 8 6 9

- 7 0

, 1 2 6 S

. C t

. 2 1 8 8

, 2 1 9 0 ( 2 0 0 6 ) ( i n t e r n a l c i t a t i o n s o m

i t t e d )

. P r e v

i o u s l y

, i n

S t r i c k l e r v

. G r e e n e

, 5 2 7 U

. S

. 2 6 3

, 2 8 1

- 8 2

, 1 1 9 S

. C t

. 1 9 3 6

, 1 9 4 8 ( 1 9 9 9 )

, t h e U n i t e d

S tates Supreme Court state d

, “ [ t ] h e r e a r e t h r e e c o m p o n e n t s o f a t r u e B r a d y v i o l a t i o n :

T h e e v i d e n c e a t i s s u e m

u s t b e f a v o r a b l e t o t h e a c c u s e d

, e i t h e r b e c a u s e i t i s e x c u l p a t o r y

,

o r b e c a u s e i t i s i m

p e a c h i n g ; t h a t e v

i d e n c e m u s t h a v e b e e n s u p p r e s s e d b y t

h e S t a t e

, e i t h e r

willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have ensued. ” T h i s C o u r t h a s a p p l i e d t h e

B r a d y t e s t n u m e r o u s t i m e s s i n c e B r a d y w a s i s s u e d

. S e e e

. g

. S t a t e v

. S e i f f e r t , 2010 MT

169, ¶ 1 4

, 3 5 7 M o n t

. 1 8 8

, 2 3 7 P

. 3 d 6 6 9 ; K i l l s O n T o p

, ¶ 2 3 ; H

i e b e r t v

. C

a s c a d e C o u n t y

,

2002 MT 233, ¶ 39, 311 Mont. 471, 56 P.3d 848.

¶ 4 8 While St. Dennis claims p rejudice vis

- à

- vis all three interviews, he primarily

f o c u s e s o n t h e S t a t e ’ s f a i l u r e t o p r

o v i d e t i m e l y a c c e s s t o S

. E

. W

. ’ s s t a t e m e n t s

. T o

d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r h e r s t a

t e m e n t s w e r e e x c u l p a t o r y

, v a l u a b l e f o r i m p e a c h m e n t p u r

p o s e s

,

a n d m a t e r i a l

, w e l o o k t o t h e s u b s t a n t i v e c o n t e n t o f t h e i n t e r v

i e w t r a n s c r i p t

. S

. E

. W

.

v o l u n t a r i l y c o n

t a c t e d t h e M i s s o u l a P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 4 : 0 0 p

. m

. o n

J a n u a r y 8

, 2 0 0 9

, w a n t i n g t o p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e S a l c i d o i n v e s t i g a t i o n

.

P r i o r t o h e r c o n

t a c t i n g t h e p o l i c e d e p a r

t m e n t

, t h e d e

p a r t m e n t h a

d n o k n o w l e d g e o f h e r

.2 1

S h e t o l d t h e d e t e c t i v

e s t h a t i n F e

b r u a r y 2 0 0 8

, M i c a h B a

l d w i n

, a n a c q u a i n t a n c e

, t o l d h e r

h e w a s w i t h S t

. D e n n i s o n t h e n i g h t S a l c i d o w a s k i l l e d

, a n d t o g e t h e r t h e y h a d a t t a c k e d

a n d b e a t e n S a l c i d o

. S

. E

. W

. s t a t e d t h a t B a l d w i n t o l d h e r h e b e l i e v e d S a l c i d o w a s s t i l l

a l i v e w h e n t h e y l e f

t h i m

. S

. E

. W

. c l a i m e d s h e c a m e f o r w a r d a f t e r r e a d i n g t h e n e w s p a p e r

coverage of St. Dennis’ trial from January 7 and wondering why Baldwin’s name was not

mentioned. She sa id that Baldwin mentioned a third person as “the one that ratted them

out” after “crying to his mom,” but she could not remember th at person’s name. S.E.W.

claimed Baldwin “seemed to be proud of” murdering Salcido under what he said was the

“Orange Street ” B r i d g

e

. S

. E

. W

. r e p o r

t e d t h a t B a l d w i n h a d b e e n drinking when they

spoke and before they parted he “put a little threat on” her.

¶ 4 9 A t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 4 : 4 5 p

. m

. o n J a n u a r y 8

, t h e d e t e c t i v

e s i n t e r v i e w e d P

. W

. w

h o

h a d v o l u n t a r i l y c o m e f

o r w a r d w i t h S

. E

. W

. H e t o l d t h e d e t e c t i v

e s t h a t h e h a d t e m

p o r a r i l y

been held by the police after he was picked up for driving on a suspended license and

failing to pay some fines. His cell was near St. Dennis’ cell. He reported that St. Dennis

told him Baldwin “played a big role i n t h e m u r d e r o f [ S a l c i d o ]

. ” P

. W

. a l s o r e p e a t e d

s t a t e m e n t s t h a t S

. E

. W

. m a d e t o h i m a b o u t h e r c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h B a l d w i n

. A f t e r t h e s e

i n t e r v i e w s

, t h e p o l i c e p i c k e d u p B a l d w i n a n d c o n d u c t e d a n i n t e r v

i e w i n w h i c h B a l d w i n

a d m i t t e d t o i n i t i a l l y p r

o v i d i n g a n u n t r

u t h f u l a l i b i f o r S t

. D e n n i s a n d l a

t e r w i t h d r a w i n g i t

.

H e s t r e n u o u s l y a n d r e p e a t e d l y d e n i e d p a r t i c i p a t i n g in Salcido’s beating or being with

St. Dennis that night

.

¶ 5 0 W e disagree with St. Dennis ’ assertion that S.E.W.’s statement was exculpatory

,

material , and c o u l d h a v

e b e e n u s e d t o i m

p e a c h S t r a

h a n ’ s t e s t i m o n y t h a t o n l y h e a n d S t

.22

Dennis participated in Salcido’s beating

. S.E.W.’s statement, taken as a whole, actually

corroborates St. Dennis’ participation in this violent crime. Her statement, which in any

event w o u l d h a v

e b e e n i n a d m

i s s i b l e h e a r s a y

, r e p e a t s B a l d w i n ’ s a s s e r t i o n s t h a t S t

. D e n n i s

w o u l d n o t s t o p k i c k i n g S a l c i d o a n d t h a t B a l d w i n h a d t o p u l l S t

. Dennis off Salcido

b e c a u s e h e h a d “ g

o t t e n c a r r i e d a w a y

. ” M o r e o v e r

, i t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a

t : ( 1 ) t h e p h y s i c a l

e v i d e n c e u n e q

u i v o c a l l y p l a c e d S t

. D e n n i s a t t h e s c e n e o f t h e b e a t i n g

, ( 2 ) h e d i d n o t d e n y

b e a t i n g S a l c i d o

, a n d ( 3 ) h e c o n f e s s e d t o b e a

t i n g S a l c i d o w

h i l e k n o w i n g l y b e i n g r e c o r d e d

o n t h e D e t e

n t i o n C e n

t e r t e l e p h o n e

. Finally, any impeachment value S .E.W.’s statement

may have ha d vis

- à

- vis S t r a h a n ’ s t e s t i m o n y i s w e a k

. W h i l e S t r a h a n t e s t i f

i e d o n l y h e a n d

S t

. D e n n i s b e a t S a l c i d o

, i m p e a c h i n g S t r a h a n b y s a y i n g B a l d w i n w a s t h e r e a s w e l l w o u l d

h a v e d o n e n o t

h i n g t o w e a k e n t h e e v

i d e n c e t h a t w a s u s e d t o c o n v i c t S t

. D e n n i s a n d

d e t e r m i n e h i s s e n t e n c e

.

¶ 5 1 To the extent St. Dennis c omplains that he was unable to use Baldwin’s

st atement s

, we repeat that St. Dennis knew Baldwin’s identity and could have called him

as a witness at any time if he knew, or believed, Baldw i n ’ s t e s t i m o n y w o u l d b e n e f i t h i m

.

A s t h e E l e v

e n t h C i r c u i t C o u r t o f A

p p e a l s n o t e d i n U

. S

. v

. V a l e r a

, 8 4 5 F

. 2 d 9 2 3

, 9 2 7

- 2 8

( 1 1 t h C i r

. 1 9 8 8 )

, “ [ t ] h e r e i s n o B r a d y v iolation when the accused or his counsel knows

before trial about the allegedly exculpatory in formation and makes no effort to obtain its

production.”

¶ 5 2 A s d e t e r m

i n e d b y t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

, S t

. D e n n i s f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t h a d

t h e s e i n t e r v i e w t r a n s c r i p t s b e e n p r e s e n t e d e a r l i e r

, t h e r e w a s a r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t

t h e j u r y v

e r d i c t w o u l d h a v

e b e e n d i f

f e r e n t

. T h i s b e i n g s o

, t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s w e r e n o t2 3

m a t e r i a l w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f B r a d y

. We t herefore conclude the District Court did not

abuse its discretion in denying St. Dennis ’ m o t i o n f o r a n e w t r i a l

.

CONCLUSION

¶ 5 3 For the foregoing reasons, St. D e n n i s ’ c o n v i c t i o n i s a f

f i r m e d

.

/ S / P A T R I C I A C O T T E R

W e c o n c u r :

/ S / M I K E M c G R A T H

/ S / M I C H A E L E W H E A T

/ S / W

. W I L L I

A M L E A P H A R T

/ S / J I M R I C E

/ S / B R I A N M O R R I S

Justice James C. Nelson, dissenting.

¶ 5 4 I d i s s e n t f

r o m I s s u e 1 b e c a u s e I d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e C o u r t t h a t t h e c o n f

l i c t s i n t h i s

c a s e w e r e a l l e v

i a t e d b y a s s i g

n i n g d e f e n s e c o u n s e l f

r o m s e p a r a t e p u b l i c d e f

e n d e r r e g i o n s

to represent the two defendants. In my view, distinguishing the various regions as

d i f f e r e n t “ f i r m s ” i s a n a r t i f

i c i a l d i s t i n c t i o n t

h a t i s n o t s u

p p o r t e d b y a c t u a

l p r a c t i c e w i t h i n

t h e p u b l i c d e f

e n d e r s y s t e m

. F u r t h e r m o r e

, t h e O p i n i o n d o e s n o t r e s o l v e t h e u n d e r

l y i n g

issue in this case because it does not address the inherent problems brought up by the

ACLU in its amicus brief.

¶ 5 5 The Montana Legisl ature created the statewide public defender system in 2005 “to

p r o v i d e e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l t o i n d i g e n t c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t s ” a n d t o “ e n s u r e2 4

t h a t t h e s y s t e m i s f

r e e f r o m u n d u e p o l i t i c a l i n t e r f e r e n c e a n d conflicts of interest

. . . . ”

S e c t i o n 4 7

- 1

- 1 0 2

, M C A ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )

. T h e C o m m i s s i o n e s t a b l i s h e d t o o v

e r s e e t h i s

n e w s y s t e m a d o p t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v

e p o l i c y t o h a

n d l e c o n f l i c t s o f i n t e r e s t

w i t h i n t h e s y s t e m :

W h e n a c a s e i s d e t e r m

i n e d t o b e a c o n f

l i c t o f i n t e r e s t

, t

h e R e g i o n a l D e p u t y

P u b l i c D e f

e n d e r s h a l l a s s i g

n t h e c a s e t o a c o n t r a c t a t t o r n e y w h o s e n a m e i s maintained on the conflict attorney list or to a public defender employed

outside his/her region.

Office of the State Public Defender Administrative Policies, No. 116, “Conflict Ca ses”

(May 11, 2007).

¶ 5 6 T h e C o m m

i s s i o n a l s o a

d o p t e d s t a n d a r d s f

o r t h e h a n d l i n g o f c o n f

l i c t c a s e s

. O n e

s u c h s t a n d a r

d s t a t e s :

E a c h i n d e

p e n d e n t r e g i o n a l o f f i c e

, i n c l u d i n g a n y l o c a l o f f i c e u n d e r i t s

s u p e r v i s i o n

, i s a s e p a r a t e “ f i r m ” f o r p u r p o s e s o f r e p r e s e n t i n g c l i e n t s

. A c c o r d i n g

l y

, a c l i e n t w i t h a c o n f

l i c t o f i n t e r e s t w i t h o n e r e g i o n a l o f f i c e

m a y b e r e p r e s e n t e d b y a n o t h e r r e g i o n a l o f f i c e

.

Commission Standard III(4)(B). However, simply designating regional public defender

offices as separate “firms” does not m ake it so.

¶ 5 7 W h i l e b o t h t h e S i x t h A m e n d m e n t t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n a n d A r t i c l e I I

,

S e c t i o n 2 4 o f t h e M o n t a

n a C o n s t i t

u t i o n g u a r a n t e e a n i n d i v

i d u a l t h e r i g

h t t o t h e e f f e c t i v e

a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l i n a l l c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n s

, t h e S i x t h A m e n d m e n t a lso imposes

upon counsel certain basic duties such as “a duty of loyalty, a duty to avoid conflicts of

i n t e r e s t

. ” S t r i c k

l a n d v

. W a s h i n g t o n

, 4 6 6 U

. S

. 6 6 8

, 6 8 8

, 1 0 4 S

. C t

. 2 0 5 2

, 2 0 6 5 ( 1 9 8 4 )

( c i t i n g C u y l e r v

. S u l l i v a n

, 4 4 6 U

. S

. 3 3 5

, 3 4 6

, 1 0 0 S

. C t

. 1 7 0 8

, 1 7 1 7 ( 1 9 8 0 ) )

.25

¶ 5 8 I n S t r i c k l a n d , the Supreme Court noted that while, ordinarily, prejudice to the

defendant must be shown with respect to deficient performance by counsel, there are

certain instances where prejudice is presumed, such as “when counsel is burdened by an

a c t u a l c o n f

l i c t o f i n t e r e s t

. ” S t r i c k

l a n d

, 4 6 6 U

. S

. a t 6 9 2

, 1 0 4 S

. C t

. a t 2 0 6 7

. A c c o r d i n g t o

Strickland , prejudice is presumed in such cases because “it is difficult to measure the

precise effect on the defense of representation corrupted by conflic t i n g i n t e r e s t s

. ”

S t r i c k l a n d , 466 U.S. at 692, 104 S. Ct. at 2067.

¶ 5 9 T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t a l s o r e c o g n i z e d t h a t c e r t a i n c o n f l i c t s o f i n t e r e s t a r e s o b a s i c

t h a t t h e y c a n n o t b e a c c u r a t e l y a s s e s s e d a f t e r a t r i a l

. H

o l l o w a y v

. A r k a n s a s

, 4 3 5 U

. S

. 4 7 5

,

9 8 S

. C t

. 1 1 7 3 ( 1 9 7 8 ) ( i n v o l v i n g j o i n t r e p r e s e n t a

t i o n o f c o

- d e f

e n d a n t s )

. C o n s e q

u e n t l y

,

t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t i n s u c h c a s e s p r e

j u d i c e i s p r e s u m e d :

But in a case of joint representation of conflicting interests the evil

— it

bears repeating

— i s i n w h a t t h e a d v

o c a t e f i n d s h i m s e l f c o m

p e l l e d t o r e

f r a i n from doing, not only at trial but also as to possible pretrial plea negotiations

and in the sentencing process. It may be possible in some cases to identify

f r o m t h e r e c o r d t h e p r e j u d i c e r e s u l t i n g f

r o m a n a t t o r n e y ’ s f

a i l u r e t o

u n d e r t a k e c e r t a i n t r i a l t a s k s

, b u t e v e n w i t h a r e c o r d o f t h e s e n t e n c i n g

h e a r i n g a v a i l a b l e i t w o u l d b e d i f f i c u l t t o j u d g

e i n t e l l i g e n t l y t h e i m

p a c t o f a conflict on the attorney’s representation of a client. And to assess the

impact of a conflict o f i n t e r e s t s o n t h e a t t o r n e y ’ s o p t i o n s

, t a c t i c s

, a n d

d e c i s i o n s i n p l e a n e g

o t i a t i o n s w o u l d b e v

i r t u a l l y i m

p o s s i b l e

.

H o l l o w a y , 435 U.S. at 490

- 91, 98 S. Ct. at 1182.

¶ 6 0 I n t h e s a m e w a y

, t h e M o n t a n a R u l e s o f P r o f

e s s i o n a l C o n d

u c t ( M

. R

. P

. C

. ) p r o v

i d e

t h a t a l a w

y e r m a y n o t r e p r e s e n t a c l i e n t i f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n w o u l d i n v o l v e a c o n c u r r e n

t

c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t

. M

. R

. P

. C

. 1

. 7 ( a )

. A c o n c u r r e n t c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t e x i s t s i f

:

( 1 ) t h e r e p r e s e n t a

t i o n o f o n e c l i e n t w i l l b e d i r e c t l y a d v e r s e t o a n o t

h e r

c l i e n t ; o r2 6 (2) the re is a significant risk that the representation of one or more

clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another

client . . . .

M.R.P. C. 1.7(a). These Rules also provide that lawyers associated in a “firm” cannot

“knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited

from doing so . . . .” M.R.P.C. 1.10 (a)

.

¶ 6 1 While this Court’s Opinion points out that the OPD “is conceptually designed so

that each regional office is an ‘independent law firm,’ ” Opinion, ¶ 21, it fails to

r e c o g n i z e t h a t

, i n a c t u a l p r a c t i c e

, t h e r e i s v e r y l i t t l e “ i n d e p e n d e n c e ” b e t w e e n t h e r e g i o n a l

o f f i c e s

. I n p o i n t o f f

a c t

, t h e i d e a t h a t r e g i o n a l p u b l i c d e f e n d e r o f f i c e s a r e s e p a r a t e a n d

independent law firms is a myth.

¶ 6 2 F o r i n s t a n c e

, w

h e n h e r e c o g

n i z e d t h a t t h e r e w a s a c o n f l i c t i n t h i s c a s e

, R e g i o n a l

D e p u t y P u b l i c D e f

e n d e r E d S h e e

h y a s s i g n e d t w o a t t o r n e y s

, P a u l e t t e F e r g u s o n a n d

C h r i s t o p h e r D a l y

, f

r o m h i s r e g i o n ( R e g i o n 2 o u t o f M i s s o u l a ) t o r e p r e s e n t S t

. D e n n i s

.

Then, rather th a n t u r n i n g S t r a h a n ’ s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o v e r t o t h e R e g

i o n a l D e p u t y P u

b l i c

D e f e n d e r i n R e g i o n 1 t o a p p o i n t s o m e o n e f

r o m t h a t r e g

i o n

, S h e e h y h i m s e l f a p p o i n t e d

C a r o l y n G i l l a n d B r i t t C o t

t e r f r o m t h e R e g

i o n 1 o f f i c e i n K a l i s p e l l a s c o u

n s e l f o r S t r a h a n

.

This is n ot consistent with the idea that these are “separate firms.” Rather, this indicates

that Sheehy’s authority and supervisory capacity extended over all four attorneys.

I ndeed, the deputy public defenders are “solely responsible for providing guidance to a nd

determining litigation strategy for attorneys assigned to their supervision.” Commission

S t a n d a r d I I I ( 4 ) ( A )

. H e n c e

, h e r e

, S h e e h y v i o l a t e d t h e C o m m i s s i o n ’ s o w

n s t a n d a r d

.27

¶ 6 3 As further evidence of that authority and supervisory capacity, there is an

exchan ge of letters between Sheehy and Gill regarding Strahan’s representation. While

the Court concludes that we should refrain from considering these letters because they are

n o t p a r t o f t h e r e c o r d o n a p p e a l

, O p i n i o n

, ¶ 3 8

, i n l i g h t o f t h e f

u n d a m e n t a l r i g

h t t o

c o u n s e l a n d t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h i s i s s u e r e g a r d i n g t h e O P D

, I w o u l d r e m a n d t h i s c a s e t o

t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o a l l o w i t t o r e v i e w t h e s e l e t t e r s

. B e c a u s e t h e y w e r e w

r i t t e n a l m o s t s i x

m o n t h s a f

t e r t h e h e a r i n g i n w

h i c h S h e e h y a n d C h i e f P u b l i c D e f e n d e r R a n d y H o o d

a s s u r e d t h e c o u r

t t h a t a n y c o n f

l i c t s i n t h e r e p r e s e n t a

t i o n o f S t

. D e n

n i s a n d S t r a h a n h a

d

b e e n r e s o l v

e d

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t n e v e r h a d a c h a n c e t o c o n s i d e r t h e s e l e t t e r s

. B u t

, i n m y

v i e w

, t h e c o u r t s h o u l d h a v e t h e o p p o r t u

n i t y t o r e v

i e w t h e s e l e t t e r s b e c a u s e t h e y

d e m o n s t r a t e t h a

t t h e c o n f l i c t s i n t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f S t

. D e n n i s a n d S t r a h a n h a d n o t

been resolved.

¶ 6 4 Moreover, the Court mischaracterizes these as “letters between a St. Dennis OPD

a t t o r n e y a n d a S t r a h a

n O P D a t t o r n e y

. ” O p i n i o n

, ¶ 3 8

. T h e y a r e

, h o w e v e r

, m u c h m o r e

t h a n t h a t

. T h e y a r e a c t u a l l y l e t t e r s b e t w e e n S h e e h y

, t h e R e g i o n a l D e p u t y P u b l i c

Defender for Region 2, who appointed the attorneys for both defendants, and a Strahan

OPD attorney from Region 1. T h e s e l e t t e r s e x e m

p l i f y S h e e h y ’ s a u t h o r i t y o v e r a n d

s u p e r v i s i o n o f t h e c o u n s e l h e a p p o i n t e d f

r o m b o t h r e g i o n a l o f f i c e s

. I n the first letter,

dated September 12, 2008, Sheehy chastises Gill for the position she was taking in

S t r a h a n ’ s c a s e r e g

a r d i n g t h e e x a m

i n a t i o n o f s o m e o f t h e p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e b y a n O P D

a p p r o v e d e x p e r t i n F l o r i d a

. S h e e h y s t a t e s i n h i s l e t t e r :28

[ W ] h i l e y o u a r e r e p r e s e n t i n g a d i f f e r e n t c l i e n t

, I n e e d t o t e l l y o u t h a t I d o n ’ t

b e l i e v e i t w o u l d l o o k g

o o d f o r y o u

, a s a n O P D a t t o r n e y

, e v e n f r o m a

d i f f e r e n t R e g i o n

, r a i s i n g a n o b j e c t i o n t o c h a i n o f c u s t o d y

, w h e n t h e e x p e r t

t h e e v i d e n c e i s s e n t t o i s a n O P D e x p e r t

. P l e a s e e x

p l a i n t o m e w

h a t y o u r

c o n c e r n s a r e o n c h a i n o f c u s t o d y s o w e c a n t r y t o w o r k o u t a n a c c e p t a b l e

a r r a n g e m e n t

, o n t h i s m a t t e r

, w i t h o u t y o u r a t t a c k i n g o t h e r O P D a t t o r n e y s o r

a n O P D e x

p e r t

.

I n t h e s e c o n d l e t t e r

, G i l l r e m i n d s S h e e h y t h a t t h e y a r e s u p p o s e d t o b e a c t i n g a s s e p a r a t e

offices with respect to these two cases and, as such, she will not hesitate to act in her

client’s best interests.

¶ 6 5 These letters belie Shee hy’s earlier representation to the District Court that the

r e g i o n a l p u b l i c d e f e n d e r o f f i c e s a r e s e p a r a t e “ f

i r m s

. ” H i s l e t t e r i n d i c a t e s t h a t S h e e h y

c o n s i d e r s t h e O P D t o b e a s i n g l e e n t i t y w

h o s e p r o c e d

u r e s s h o u l d n o t b e q

u e s t i o n e d o r

c h a l l e n g e d

. A n d

, t h i s l e t t e r c l e a r l y s h o w s t h e i n h e r e n t p r o b l e m w i t h h a v i n g t h e a t t o r

n e y s

f o r b o t h d e f

e n d a n t s come from within the public defender system.

¶ 6 6 Also not of record in this matter, but of critical importance to the conflict issue in

this case

— and thus information th at also should be reviewed by the District Court on

remand

— is a report prepared by a group of consultants from American University

retained by the Commission to assess Montana’s new public defender system. These

consultants did not issue their final repor t u n t i l O c t o b e r 2 0 0 9 ( h e r e a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s “ t

h e

AU Report”) 1

. T h e A

U R e p o r t w a s b a s e d u p o n a r e v i e w o f t h e p u b l i c d e f

e n d e r s y s t e m i n

M o n t a n a f r o m A u g u s t 2 0 0 8 t h r o u g

h J u n e 2 0 0 9

. I

t s t a t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g w i t h r e s p e c t t o

c o n f l i c t c a s e s :

1 A c o p y o f t h e A

U R e p o r t m a y b e o b t a i n e d f r o m t h e P u b l i c D e f

e n d e r C o m m i s s i o n

w e b s i t e a t h t

t p : / / p u b l i c d e f e n d e r

. m t

. g o v / A U e v a l

. a s p ( a c c e s s e d O c t o b e r 2 7

, 2 0 1 0 )

.2 9

A s t o t h e c o n f l i c t i s s u e a t t

h e t r i a l l e v e l

, i t i s s t r o n g l y s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e

c o n t r a c t l a w y e r r e t a i n e d i n a c o n

f l i c t s i t u a t i o n o r s t

a f f l a w y e r f r o m a n o t h e

r

R e g i o n d o e s n o t r e s o l v e the conflict, either in form or substance. I n

p r a c t i c e

, w

h e t h e r i n t e n d e d o r n o t

, t h e A g

e n c y i s h i g

h l y c e n t r a l i z e d

. T h e

C h i e f D e f e n d e r e x e r c i s e s c o m

p l e t e a u t h o r i t y t h r

o u g h o u t t h e A g

e n c y s u b j e c t

o n l y t o t h e C o m m i s s i o n

, a n d s h e i s n o t r e l u c t a n t t o e x e r c i s e t h a t a u t

h o r i t y

. R e g i o n s a r e n o t i n d e

p e n d e n t e n t i t i e s ; t h e e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n c o n f

e r s

a u t h o r i t y u p o n a n d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r e v e r y t h i n g a n d a n y

t h i n g t h a t r e l a t e s t o

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e i n d i g e n t t o t h e C h i e f P u b l i c D e f e n d e r

.

The AU Report, p. 36 (emphasis added).

¶ 6 7 I n a d d i t i o n

, t

h e A U R e p o r t s t a t e d t

h a t

, i n t h e c o n s u l t a n

t ’ s v i e w

, M o n t a n a ’ s p u

b l i c

d e f e n d e r s y s t e m w a s a s i n g

l e l a w f i r m

, r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e c r e a t i o n o f r e g i o n s a n d r e g i o n a l

directors: “While the Legislation authorizes the Commission to create up to 11 Regions,

neither the Regions nor the Appellate office are independent units in fac t o r i n p r a c t i c e

. ”

T h e A U R e p o r t

, p

. 3 8 n

. 1 5

. R a t h e r

, a s t h e A C L U p o i n t s o u t i n i t s a m i c u s b r i e f o n

a p p e a l

,

t h e p u b l i c d e f e n d e r s y s t e m i n M o n t a

n a i s o n e c o h e s i v

e w h o l e

, s u p e r v

i s e d

c l o s e l y b y o n e p e r s o n

, g o v e r n e d b y t h e s a m e p o l i c i e s a n d p r o c e d u r e s

,

t r a i n e d i n t h e s a m e w a y b y t h e s a m e p e r s o n n e l

, a n d t i e d t o t h e s a m e

c o n t r a c t s f

o r i n v e s t i g a t o r s a n d e x

p e r t s

. F o r a l l i n t e n t

s a n d p u r p o s e s i t i s

o n e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e u n i t ; o n e s i n

g l e e n t i t y w i t h v a r i o u s b r a n c h e s

. T h e

d i f f e r e n t r e g i o n s w i t h i n t h e p u b l i c d e f e n d e r s y s t e m a r e n o t s e p a r a t e o r

d i s t i n c t i n a

n y w a y f r o m t h e o v

e r a l l p u b l i c d e f e n d e r s y s t e m

. E a c h i s

a c c o u n t a b l e t o t h e s a m e p e r s o n

, u n d e r t h e s a m e s t a n d a r d s a n d p r i n c i p l e s

. [Emphasis added.]

¶ 6 8 F u r t h e r m o r e

, i n a t t e m p t i n g t o d i s t i n g

u i s h t h e r e g i o n a l p u b l i c d e f e n d e r o f f i c e s f r o m

p r i v a t e l a w f i r m s i n t h e c o n t e x t o f c o n f l i c t c a s e s

, t h e C o u r

t p o i n t s o u t t h a t u n l i k e p r i v a t e

l a w f i r m s

, t h e O P D i s a n o t

- f o r

- p r o f i t p u b l i c e n t i t y a n d t h a t b e c a u s e i t s a t t o r n e y s a r e

salaried employees, their compensation is not driven by their success or failure. Opinion,

¶ 3 0

. S i m

i l a r l y

, t h e S t a t e c l a i m s i n i t s b r i e f o n a p p e a l t h a t u n l i k e l a w y e r s i n a l a w f

i r m

,3 0

public defenders do not have a financial incentive to represent clients with conflicts of

interest because they do not share l egal fees.

¶ 6 9 A l t h o u g

h i t i s t r u e t h a t p u b l i c d e f e n d e r s a r e s a l a r i e d e m

p l o y e e s a n d t h u s t h e y d o

n o t h a v e a f i n a n c i a l i n c e n t i v

e t o r e p r e s e n t c o n f

l i c t e d c o

- d e f

e n d a n t s

, t h e O P D i t s e l f h a s a

f i s c a l i n t e r e s t i n r e t a i n i n g t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f c o n f l i c t e d c o

- d e f

e n dants, not because it

would result in the OPD making more money

— as would be the case with a private law

firm

— but because it would prevent the loss of fiscal resources. As St. Dennis points out

in his brief on appeal, the OPD is “ a woefully und erfunded age n c y

. ” C o n s e q u e n t l y

, t h e

m o r e c o n f

l i c t e d c o

- d e f

e n d a n t s w h o a r e a s s i g

n e d t o c o u n s e l o u

t s i d e t h e O P D

, t h e h i g

h e r

t h e c o s t t o t

h e O P D

.

¶ 7 0 T h e C o u r t a l s o n o t e s i t s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e “ s a f

e g u a r d s ” a n d “ e t h i c a l w a l l s ” i n

p l a c e a t O P D t h a t p u r

p o r t e d l y g

u a r a n t e e t h a t e a c h r e g

i o n a l p u b l i c d e f e n d e r o f f i c e r e m a i n s

a s e p a r a t e “ f

i r m ” u n d e r t h e M

. R

. P

. C

. f o r c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t p u r

p o s e s

. O p i n i o n

, ¶

¶ 3 4

,

3 6

. I n c l u d e d a m o n g t h e s e s a f e g u a r d s

, t h e C o u r

t l i s t s v a r i o u s O P D p r i v a c y a n d

c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y p r o t e c t i o n s s u c h a s th e method the OPD employs to keep client bills

separate and the fact that attorneys from different regions do not have physical access to

OPD offices in other regions, nor do they have computer access to other OPD attorney’s

files. Opinion, ¶¶ 23, 34.

¶ 7 1 H o w e v

e r

, t h e r e i s m o r e t o t h e i s s u e o f c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t t h a n s i m p l y

c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y i n c o m

m u n i c a t i o n s

. E v

e n i f i n f o r m a t i o n r e m a i n s c o n f

i d e n t i a l a n d a c c e s s

t o a n o f f i c e b u i l d i n g i s l i m i t e d

, a c o n c u r r e n t c o n f l i c t r e m a i n s s i m

p l y b e c a u s e t h e

d e f e n d a n t s ’ i n t e r e s t s a r e d i r e c t l y a d v e r s e

.31

¶ 7 2 In this case both St. Dennis and Strahan were charged with being accountable for

the actions of the other, and, from the beginning, Strahan placed the lion’s share of the

culpability onto St. Dennis. Strahan’s testimony was cr itical and damning. It was

Strahan’s interview with law enforcement officers that ini tially implicated St. Dennis in

Salcido ’ s d e a t h

. I

t w a s S t r a h a n w

h o c h a r a c t e r i z e d S t

. D e n n i s a s t h e i n i t i a l a n d p r i m a r y

a g g r e s s o r i n t h e d e a t

h

. I t w a s S t r a h a n w

h o t o l d a b o u

t S t

. D e n n i s c l e a n i n g b l o o d o f f o f h i s

s h o e s

. I t w a s S t r a h a n w

h o p r o v i d e d t h e o n l y e y e

- w i t n e s s t e s t i m o n y a g a i n s t S t

. D e n n i s a t

t r i a l

. T h a

t t h e s e t w o c o

- d e f

e n d a n t s h a d d i f

f e r i n g d e f e n s e s a n d d i v

e r g e n t i n t e r e s t s i s a n

understatement.

¶ 7 3 I n A d a m s v

. S

t a t e , 380 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 1980), the Supreme Court of Florida held

t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t ’ s a p p o i n t m e n t o f a p u b l i c d e f

e n d e r f r o m o n e c i r c u i t t o h a n d l e a

p o s t c o n v i c t i o n m o t i o n a s s e r t i n g i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l a g a i n s t a t r i a l a t t o r n e y

f r o m a n o t h e r c i r c uit was improper. The court reasoned that the second public defender

would be faced with the dilemma of vigorously asserting the petitioner’s claim or

d e f e n d i n g t h e p r o f

e s s i o n a l r e p u t a t i o n o f h i s o f f i c e

. T h i s

, t h e c o u r t a s s e r t e d

, “ w o u l d b e a t

l e a s t a s g r e a t a c o n f

l i c t a s h a v i n g t h e s a m e o f f i c e r e p r e s e n t t w o d e f

e n d a n t s w i t h

c o n f l i c t i n g i n t e r e s t s

. ” A d

a m s , 380 So. 2d at 422.

¶ 7 4 A s i m i l a r d i l e m m a i s p r e s e n t i n t h i s c a s e a s e v i d e n c e d b y S h e e h y ’ s l e t t e r t o G i l l

w h e r e i n S h e e h y c h a s t i s e s G i l l f o r r a i s i n g a n o b

j e c t i o n t o t

h e c h a i n o f c u s t o d y b e c a u s e h e

doesn’t believe “it would look good” for Gill, as an OPD attorney, to raise such an

objection when the expert the evidence is sent to is an OPD expert. In addition, neither

S t r a h a n ’ s n o r S t

. D e n n i s ’ s a t t o r n e y s c o u l d r a i s e t h e c o n f l i c t s i s s u e b e c a u s e o f t h e3 2

argument established by their supervisors, Sheehy and Hood. To do so would have been

to argue against the position of their supervisors and employer.

¶ 7 5 I n c o n c l u s i o n

, t h e p u

b l i c d e f e n d e r s y s t e m e x i s t s t o p r

o t e c t t h e f u n d a m e n t a l r i g

h t o f

e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l

. D e s p i t e t

h e b e s t e f

f o r t s o f t h e L e g i s l a t u r e

, t h e

Commission, and many who have worked to create the public defender system, the

current system is burdened with some significant flaws

— a s e v i d e n c e d h e r e a

n d i n t h e

A U r e p o r t

. M o r e o v

e r

, i t i s s e r i o u s l y u n d e r f

u n d e d

. R a t

h e r t h a n s w e e p i n g t h e s e p r o b l e m s

u n d e r t h e t e c h n i c a l i t y c a r

p e t

, w e s h o u l d a d d r e s s t h e s e i s s u e s h e a d o n t o t h e e n d t h a t t

h e

2011 session of the Legislature will have some guidance in addressin g the public

d e f e n d e r s y s t e m ’ s p r o b l e m s

. I n f a i l i n g t o d o s o

, w e a r e u l t i m a t e l y p a s s i n g t h e b u c k t o

f u r t h e r l i t i g

a t i o n a n d

, l i k e l y

, t h e f

e d e r a l c o u r

t s

. I c a n n o t a g

r e e w i t h t h i s a p p r

o a c h

.

¶ 7 6 I would remand this case to allow the District Court to re consider the conflict

- of

i n t e r e s t i s s u e i n l i g

h t o f t h e i n f

o r m a t i o n p r e v

i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d

. I d i s s e n t f r o m o u r f a i l u r e

t o d o s o

.

/ S / J A M E S C

. N E L S O N