McDonald is represented here by counsel and has filed a pro se brief. We resolve this case by determining whether an actual conflict of interest between standby counsel and a defendant merits an assumption of prejudice justifying reversal of the trial court's decision. Because we affirm the Court of Appeals result, we need not fully address and analyze the constitutional right to proceed pro se on appeal. We have also fully considered the other issues raised by McDonald and find them moot for purposes of our disposition. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution gives a criminal defendant the right to effective assistance of counsel.
Effective assistance includes a duty of loyalty and a duty to avoid conflicts of interest.
The Sixth Amendment also gives a criminal defendant the right to represent himself or herself at trial. This court has defined standby counsel's role as not necessarily representing the defendant but as providing technical information. Standby counsel must be available to represent the accused on a moment' s notice in the event termination of the defendant's self-representation is necessary. Furthermore, statements between defendant and standby counsel are privileged. In this case, we must determine whether an actual conflict of interest between standby counsel and McDonald merits a presumption of prejudice justifying reversal of his conviction, when the trial court was notified of the conflict and did not inquire into its nature and extent.