Court Opinion

ID: 9836861
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:15:14.913755+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:19.081222
License: Public Domain

GIERKE, Judge
(concurring):
I agree with the decision and rationale in this opinion. I agree that there was no breach of the attorney-client privilege between trial counsel and Mrs. Golston. I agree that appellant was not prejudiced. I write separately to express my own views about the conduct of the prosecution team in this case.
In United States v. Boone, 42 MJ 308, 313 (1995), we measured the performance of defense counsel by evaluating “the combined efforts of the defense team as a whole.” In my view, this team approach is equally applicable to the prosecution. In this case, the prosecution team labored under a conflict of interest. Its interests were adverse to Mrs. Golston’s. It wanted to send Specialist Golston to jail; Mrs. Golston wanted to keep him out of jail. The prosecution team was determined to attack Mrs. Golston’s reputation; she had an interest in protecting it. Under the team approach adopted by this Court in Boone,' trial counsel’s conflict of interest was imputed to the entire prosecution team. The conflict of interest could be resolved only by relieving trial counsel from further participation in the case.
When trial counsel discovered that he had previously represented Mrs. Golston and disclosed that fact to assistant trial counsel, both officers had an ethical duty to disclose the conflict of interest to the military judge immediately, and not wait for two more weeks until Mrs. Golston raised the issue in the middle of this trial. See United States v. Murphy, 50 MJ 4, 10 (1998) (appellant entitled to have military judge settle conflict-of-interest issues on the record); United States v. Breese, 11 MJ 17, 23 (CMA 1981) (conflict of interest presumed where military judge has not conducted suitable inquiry). Both officers had a duty to “avoid the very appearance of that wrongdoing which, in obedience to the important policy dictating [the attorney-client] relationship, the courts are impelled to deplore. . . .” United States v. McCluskey, 6 USCMA 545, 550, 20 CMR 261, 266, 1955 WL 3563 (1955). In my view, they failed in that duty.
To Mrs. Golston and any observer who knew that trial counsel had represented her, the situation looked like a conflict of interest. To Mrs. Golston and any observer who knew that trial counsel had represented her, it appeared that trial counsel had breached the attorney-client privilege when assistant trial counsel cross-examined her about the same matter that she and trial counsel had exchanged confidential communications. The prosecution team violated the precept announced in McCluskey and codified in the ABA Code of Professional Responsibility.
I agree with the majority’s ultimate conclusion that appellant was not prejudiced under the specific facts of this case. I sincerely hope that this case will cause prosecutors to be more sensitive to the potential for conflicts of interest arising from multiple military duties.