Opinion ID: 1347679
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: conflict of interests with trial counsel

Text: Gardner asserts that Andrew and James Valdez should have disqualified themselves from representing Gardner because they were witnesses to Gardner's condition after the courthouse shooting. The district court ruled that the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct and the Code of Professional Conduct previously in effect prohibited the Valdez brothers from representing Gardner but that Gardner had waived any conflict of interest. Gardner challenges the court's finding that he waived the conflict of interest. At the time of the events in question here, the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct of the Utah State Bar governed the conduct of Utah attorneys. [3] Disciplinary Rule 5-102(A) provided: If, after undertaking employment in contemplated or pending litigation, a lawyer learns or it is obvious that he or a lawyer in his firm ought to be called as a witness on behalf of his client, he shall withdraw from the conduct of the trial and his firm, if any, shall not continue representation in the trial, except that he may continue the representation and he or a lawyer in his firm may testify in the circumstances enumerated in DR 5-101(B)(1) through (4). [4] `[A]pplication of this rule does not depend on whether an attorney will be called but rather, as the Code provides, on whether he ought to be called as a witness in the underlying action.' State v. Leonard, 707 P.2d 650, 653 (Utah 1985) (quoting Groper v. Taff, 717 F.2d 1415, 1418 (D.C.Cir.1983) (per curiam)). The thrust of Gardner's defense was that he was confused at the time of the shootings and did not intend to kill Burdell and that his demeanor after the shooting was therefore relevant to his defense. The Valdez brothers testified in the habeas proceeding that their testimony would have added nothing to Gardner's defense. Andrew Valdez testified that Gardner responded coherently to his questions on the courthouse lawn and that this might have cut against the defense theory that Gardner was confused at the time of the shooting. James Valdez testified that he had nothing to add concerning Gardner's state of mind at the time of the shooting. Gardner argues that this assertion by James Valdez is belied by the fact that he attempted to introduce facts about Gardner's conduct at the scene, well after both shootings, during the cross-examination of a prosecution witness. The only fact that James Valdez tried to bring out was that Gardner grimaced with pain while sitting on the courthouse lawn. That fact, while marginally relevant, adds nothing to establishing that Gardner was confused or incoherent when he shot Burdell. Although the Valdez brothers were potential witnesses, they were not material witnesses, and nothing in the record indicates that they ought to have been called as witnesses. It is true that to the extent their observations were contrary to Gardner's theory of his defense, they might have been called by the State, but they were not. Whatever the ethical propriety of the conduct of defense counsel, no harm accrued to Gardner. Gardner also asserts that defense counsel had a conflict of interest because they knew Nick Kirk, whom Gardner had shot during his escape attempt, and other witnesses, and because Gardner and his attorneys had an acrimonious relationship. That is not the basis for a conflict of interest. Although there was animosity between Gardner and Andrew Valdez, Gardner does not explain how this adversely affected counsels' performance. He asserts that he was extremely unhappy about his confinement conditions and upset with Mr. Valdez because he did nothing to help the situation and that in an effort to change those conditions, Gardner attempted to plead guilty at a pretrial hearing, but his attorneys convinced him not to. These facts do not reflect adversely on counsels' performance. The fact that a defendant does not get along with his attorney does not, standing alone, establish a denial of the effective assistance of counsel. Gardner must also establish that the animosity resulted in such a deterioration of the attorney-client relationship that the right to the effective assistance of counsel was imperiled. He has not done so.