Court Opinion

ID: 9457697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:30:19.973607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:28.105048
License: Public Domain

GIBBONS, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Kachinski was charged with stealing a motor vehicle on or about July 31, 1965, and related offenses. At his first trial in February, 1966, at which the jurors were deadlocked, a key Commonwealth witness, Piazza, refused to testify against him although he had previously given contradictory statements to the police which had linked Kachinski to the crimes. At the second trial in June, 1966, at which Kachinski was convicted, Piazza testified that he had witnessed Kachinski in the stolen car and that Ka*584chinski had admitted his participation in the crime.
This same Piazza had pleaded guilty in the Spring of 1965 to indictments charging him with criminal offenses unrelated to the crimes for which Kachin-ski was convicted. Piazza had received an 18 month sentence on August 6, 1965, and he was paroled in December, 1965. In April, 1967, Piazza was released from the terms of his parole. Up until the time of his sentencing on August 6, 1965, Piazza had been represented by the same attorney who represented Ka-chinski at both trials. After that date, to and including the date of the release from parole, that same attorney continued as Piazza’s attorney of record. There is no evidence showing that Ka-chinski was aware of this contemporaneous representation.
After Kachinski’s conviction, his alleged accomplice Murdock, who was unavailable at the time of Kachinski’s trial, was apprehended and tried. At Mur-dock’s trial, he testified that it was Piazza, and not Kachinski, who was the other perpetrator of the July 31, 1965, crimes. On the basis of this testimony, Kachinski filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. His petition was denied by the district court and he took this appeal. His petition should have been granted.
During the time that Kachinski’s attorney represented him at his first and second trials, Piazza had not been formally charged with participating in any of the July 31, 1965, crimes. Nonetheless, Piazza had in fact been linked with these crimes because he had been questioned by the police as a possible suspect. It was this questioning which led Piazza to implicate Kachinski. Kachin-ski's attorney was cognizant of these facts because she cross-examined Piazza as to his motives for testifying.
Moreover, these events all took place while she was still noted as Piazza’s attorney of record and, consequently, still owed him at least a duty of loyalty. Piazza’s incriminatory testimony was given while he was released on county parole. See 61 P.S. § 314. According to the brief of the relator, in such parole re-incarceration or freedom is controlled by the sentencing court and this court requires the presence of the parolee’s attorney should a problem of parole status arise. The July 31, 1965 offenses probably could not be the basis for revocation of parole, since they took place prior to Piazza’s release on parole. But in a revocation proceeding pursuant to 61 P.S. § 314 based on other misconduct the July 31, 1965 offenses could be taken into account in determining if Piazza would be benefited by continuing liberty. Thus the attorney’s continuing duty of loyalty to Piazza, as evidenced by her continuing as attorney of record, placed her in a position of possible dual representation. I cannot accept the proposition in footnote 6 of the majority opinion that Piazza, by giving a possibly false statement to the police, waived his attorney-client "privilege or that he thereby released his attorney from her duty of loyalty.
Although it is not apparent that any actual harm resulted to Kachinski, there is no need to prove such prejudice or harm since the mere presence of a conflict of interest without the knowledge and consent of a defendant taints the proceedings. See Walker v. United States, 422 F.2d 374, 375 (3d Cir. 1970); United States ex rel. Miller v. Myers, 253 F.Supp. 55, 57 (E.D.Pa. 1966). This is especially so here where the attorney for Kachinski was at the same time, without the knowledge of the relator, the attorney of record for a key Commonwealth witness who himself was questioned as a suspect of the crimes. At least until such time as counsel withdrew of record, a duty of loyalty existed toward Piazza, which duty resulted in a conflict of interest in representing Ka-chinski.
I would reverse the order of the district court.