Opinion ID: 1158101
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the Prosecutor Should Have Been Disqualified

Text: The case of In re Ockrassa, 165 Ariz. 576, 799 P.2d 1350 (1990), is dispositive on the issue of the prosecutor's disqualification. Ockrassa, a public defender, represented a client in three DUI cases resulting in convictions. The Mohave County Attorney's office then hired Ockrassa and assigned him to prosecute his former client who was charged with DUI as a third offense within the preceding 60 months. 165 Ariz. at 576, 799 P.2d at 1350. Ockrassa alleged the prior DUI convictions for enhancement purposes. The former client requested that Ockrassa disqualify himself. Ockrassa refused and later argued that he did not violate ER 1.9 because the prior DUI convictions were not substantially related to the case he was prosecuting. This court disagreed stating that [t]he validity of [the] prior convictions was directly in issue. 165 Ariz. at 578, 799 P.2d at 1352. We further held: [W]e do not believe that, in the context of multiple DUI offenses, a substantial relationship is established only if the prior conviction is an element of the subsequent offense. One of the aims of ER 1.9 is to protect the client.... Respondent's conduct in prosecuting [his former client] created a substantial danger that confidential information revealed in the course of the attorney/client relationship would be used against [the former client] by ... his former attorney. Id. We disciplined Ockrassa for violating ER 1.9 by not disqualifying himself from the prosecution. The facts in this case are similar; the prior convictions were directly in issue, and the prosecutor should have disqualified himself from the prosecution. It is not enough that the prosecutor had a colleague prove the prior convictions; the prosecutor remained in charge of the prosecution, and the substantial danger that confidential information revealed in the course of the attorney/client relationship would be used against [the defendant] was still present. Other jurisdictions have also held that, when a defendant has been represented by an attorney seeking to prosecute him in a related matter, the attorney should be disqualified. See Reaves v. State, 574 So.2d 105, 106-07 (Fla. 1991); State v. Tippecanoe County Court, 432 N.E.2d 1377, 1379 (Ind. 1982). In Tippecanoe County, the Indiana Supreme Court held that an attorney who had twice represented a defendant in proceedings resulting in conviction should be disqualified from prosecuting that defendant when the earlier convictions were alleged for enhancement. 432 N.E.2d at 1378-79. That court held that the prosecutor should be disqualified when the controversy involved in the pending case [was] substantially related to a matter in which the lawyer previously represented another client. Id. at 1378 (citations omitted). The court then stated: In this case, it appears that nothing in [the prosecutor's] representation of the accused in the two prior theft cases would have any relation to the present theft case. However, the habitual offender charge is based upon the same two prior theft cases in which [the prosecutor] was involved. Therefore, there is a substantial relationship involved. Although it is true, that the fact of the defendant's prior convictions are a matter of public record, we cannot say without speculation that the prosecutor's knowledge of those prior cases will not actually result in prejudice to defendant. The public trust in the integrity of the judicial process requires us to resolve any serious doubt in favor of disqualification. The trial court properly held that [the prosecutor] must be disqualified in this case. Id. at 1379 (emphasis added). We agree with the Indiana court's language. See State v. Latigue, 108 Ariz. 521, 523, 502 P.2d 1340, 1342 (1972). Callahan gained intimate knowledge of defendant while representing him. In this case, defendant thought Callahan enough of an ally that he talked with him during the execution of the search warrant and at the courthouse before trial. As we stated in Latigue, [w]hat must a defendant and his family and friends think when his attorney ... goes to work in the very office that is prosecuting him? Id. Had Callahan been challenged pretrial, apparently all would agree that he should have been disqualified. Because defendant is not precluded from raising the issue in a PCR under the facts of this case, the same rule of disqualification should apply.