Opinion ID: 2208549
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Request for Disqualification of Counsel

Text: Swan first argues that the trial judge should have granted him a new trial because, during the guilt phase of the proceedings against him, the Governor of Delaware nominated Swan's attorney, David Jones, for a position as a Family Court Commissioner. Kenneth Warren's aunt is Delaware State Senator Nancy Cook. Swan claims Senator Cook's ability to influence other Senators who would vote in Jones' confirmation resulted in a conflict of interest. This Court reviews a trial judge's denial of a motion for new trial for an abuse of discretion. [3] During one of Jones' initial interviews with Swan, Jones told Swan that he discussed a nomination for an appointed position with Senator Cook the previous year, that Jones would continue to seek the nomination, but that Jones did not have a personal relationship with Senator Cook and had only spoken to Senator Cook on one or two prior occasions. Swan moved for new counsel approximately one year before the trial took place. The trial judge denied the motion. Swan raised the same objection when he moved for a new trial during the penalty phase of his trial. Specifically, Swan claimed that the relationship between Senator Cook and Jones created an appearance of impropriety that may have affected Swan's Sixth Amendment rights. In response, the trial judge noted that Senator Cook abstained from voting on Jones' confirmation as a Commissioner. The trial judge also noted that Swan did not present any evidence of improper conduct by Jones. The Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel provides for representation free from conflicts of interest or divided loyalties. [4] This right applies irrespective of whether the attorney is appointed or privately retained. [5] Though the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant effective assistance of counsel, it does not provide the defendant counsel of his or her choice. [6] Delaware Lawyers' Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7(b) provides: A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests, unless: (1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected; and (2) the client consents after consultation. [7] The comments to Rule 1.7 note that an inquiry into a conflict of interest must include an analysis of the likelihood that actual conflict will arise and the likely prejudice to the client from the conflict if it does arise. [8] When a judge is alerted to possible conflicts of interest, the judge must take adequate steps to determine whether the conflicts warrant separate counsel. [9] In the recent decision of Mickens v, Taylor, the United States Supreme Court held that when a trial judge fails to inquire into a potential conflict of interest that he knew or reasonably should have known existed, a defendant, in order to establish a Sixth Amendment violation, must demonstrate that the conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance. [10] We do not need to decide whether the Delaware Constitution affords a defendant more protection than the United States Constitution when the trial judge fails to inquire into a potential conflict of interest. When Swan alerted the trial judge about a possible conflict of interest, the trial judge took adequate steps to determine whether the conflict warranted new counsel. After receiving Swan's pro se motion, the trial judge sent a letter to Swan's counsel and asked for a response. Defense counsel then submitted a detailed response denying the existence of a conflict. The trial judge then ruled on Swan's claim at the proof positive hearing on June 29, 2000. The trial judge took proper steps to determine whether a conflict of interested existed after Swan filed his motion. The trial judge also properly determined that Swan's attorney did not have a conflict of interest. The trial judge concluded that Senator Cook had no role in the nomination process of a judicial candidate and that she had abstained from voting on Jones' confirmation. The trial judge further noted that the Senate did not confirm Jones until after the guilt phase of the trial and, therefore, there was no reason for any interaction between Senator Cook and Jones at that time because his name had not yet been submitted to the Senate. The Senate did confirm him before the penalty phase but Senator Cook did not vote on his confirmation. The trial judge explained that Swan had done no more than ask the court to speculate that Senator Cook acted in some way to influence voting Senators because he could produce no evidence of improper conduct on anyone's part. [11] We agree with the trial judge's conclusion that Jones did not have a conflict of interest when he represented Swan. Up until the release of Jones' nomination during the guilt phase of Swan's trial, Jones merely intended to submit his name if a position for Commissioner became open in the future. The Comments to Rule 1.7 note that an inquiry into a conflict of interest must include an analysis of the likelihood that actual conflict will arise and the likely prejudice to the client from the conflict if it does arise. Here, the likelihood of conflict was remote. Neither Jones nor Senator Cook could have known when a position would become available. The trial judge also correctly determined that Swan failed to demonstrate any prejudice as a result of his counsel's alleged conflict of interest. Swan made no claim of deficient performance. He never specified what he believed Jones did or failed to do in light of the alleged conflict that he argued could have prejudiced his defense. Thus, Swan's argument reduces itself to the claim that the conflict created an appearance of impropriety. [12] The trial judge further noted that Jones' defense of Swan was highly skilled and vigorous, evidenced by the fact that the jury deliberated four days before convicting Swan and on horrendously unfavorable facts recommended the death penalty by only a seven to five vote. Given the trial judge's thoughtful inquiry and reasoned conclusion, we cannot find that he abused his discretion when he denied Swan's Motions to Disqualify Counsel or for a New Trial.