People v. Chambers
| Decision Date | 14 November 1986 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Mark CHAMBERS and Lorenzo Harvey, Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
The District Attorney of Kings County moves for an order disqualifying the Legal Aid Society from representing defendant Lorenzo Harvey on the grounds that the Legal Aid Society represented the complaining witness and other People's witnesses in prior unrelated criminal proceedings. The People's witnesses have not joined in the action.
The Court, after examining in camera, the files submitted by the People and considering the People's memorandum of law and oral argument in favor of the motion and defense counsel's argument in opposition, as well as defendant's waiver in open court of his attorney's right to utilize on cross-examination any material obtained by the Legal Aid Society during its representation of the People's witnesses in prior criminal proceedings, denied the People's motion with this opinion to follow.
Defendant Harvey is indicted for the crimes of Robbery in the First Degree, Robbery in the Second Degree and Criminal Impersonation in the First Degree (Ind. No. 4678/85), and for the crimes of Robbery in the Second Degree (2 counts), Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Third Degree, Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, Criminal Impersonation in the First Degree and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree (Ind. No. 3215/85).
A defendant's right to counsel is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution (U.S. Const. 6th Amend.), the New York State Constitution (N.Y. Const. art. I, § 6) and by statute (CPL 210.15, subd. 2). The right to counsel includes "a correlative right to representation that is free from conflicts of interest ..." (Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261, 271, 101 S.Ct. 1097, 1103, 67 L.Ed.2d 220; United States v. Agosto, 675 F.2d 965, 969 (8th Cir.)).
Initially, the Court had to determine whether a conflict of interest exists or a potential conflict exists if a Legal Aid attorney represents a defendant, and a different Legal Aid attorney had or is representing a People's witness.
In People v. Lombardo, 61 N.Y.2d 97, 472 N.Y.S.2d 589, 460 N.E.2d 1074, the prosecution moved to disqualify privately retained defense counsel on the ground that he had personally previously represented, on various criminal charges, the People's chief witness at Lombardo's trial. The Court of Appeals found that there "was a potential conflict of interest ..." (61 N.Y.2d, supra, p. 102, 472 N.Y.S.2d 589, 460 N.E.2d 1074) and that the trial court erred in not ascertaining on the record whether defendant was aware of the potential conflict, its risks and whether he desired to knowingly waive it. (See, People v. Hall, 46 N.Y.2d 873, 414 N.Y.S.2d 678, 387 N.E.2d 610, cert. denied 444 U.S. 848, 100 S.Ct. 97, 62 L.Ed.2d 63; People v. Ayala, 86 Misc.2d 99, 381 N.Y.S.2d 655; United States v. Tocco, 575 F.Supp. 100, 102; People v. Frisbie, 70 A.D.2d 1053, 417 N.Y.S.2d 551; United States v. Jeffers, 520 F.2d 1256 (7th Cir.), cert. denied 423 U.S. 1066, 96 S.Ct. 805, 46 L.Ed.2d 656; 27 ALR 3d 1431; cf., People v. Tineo, 64 N.Y.2d 531, 490 N.Y.S.2d 159, 479 N.E.2d 795, dissenting opn. by Kaye, J., p. 537, 490 N.Y.S.2d 159, 479 N.E.2d 795). It is clear that when a privately retained defense counsel has previously represented a People's witness there is a potential conflict of interest.
However, whether this conflict of interest exists when defendant is represented by a Legal Aid attorney and a different staff attorney from the Legal Aid Society has previously represented a prosecution witness in an unrelated case needs to be resolved.
In People v. Wilkins, 28 N.Y.2d 53, 320 N.Y.S.2d 8, 268 N.E.2d 756, the Legal Aid Society represented defendant at trial and appeal. During the appeal process Legal Aid discovered that at the time of defendant's trial they had been assigned to represent, in an unrelated criminal matter, the complainant. Legal Aid, on its own motion, was relieved of its appeal assignment. Defendant then contended in a coram nobis motion that Legal Aid's assignment to represent the complainant in the unrelated criminal matter created a per se conflict of interest at defendant's trial. In affirming the denial of defendant's motion, the Court of Appeals recognized that under the facts in Wilkins, a distinction exists between a private law firm and the Legal Aid Society. The court stated:
"While it is true that for the purpose of disqualification of counsel, knowledge of one member of a law firm will be imputed by inference to all members of that law firm (Laskey Bros. of W.Va. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, 224 F2d 824, ), we do not believe the same rationale should apply to a large public-defense organization such as the Legal Aid Society. The premise upon which disqualification of law partners is based is that there is within the law partnership a free flow of information, so that knowledge of one member of the firm is knowledge to all.
Even if we were to treat the Legal Aid Society to be analogous to a law partnership, there is no evidence that information concerning defendants being represented by the society flows freely within the office, or that there was actual knowledge of the dual representation by the society ...
In view of the nature of the organization and the scope of its activities, we cannot presume that complete and full flow of 'client' information between staff attorneys exists, in order to impute knowledge to each staff attorney within the office" (People v. Wilkins, supra, p. 56, 320 N.Y.S.2d 8, 268 N.E.2d 756).
The court in Wilkins also stated that:
"We are not persuaded that the unknowing dual representation of both the complaining witness and the defendant does, in and of itself, deprive a defendant of effective representation of counsel ..." (People v. Wilkins, supra, p. 55, 320 N.Y.S.2d 8, 268 N.E.2d 756.)
In People v. Spencer, 101 Misc.2d 259, 420 N.Y.S.2d 868, the District Attorney moved to relieve the Legal Aid Society from representing defendant because they had previously represented, in unrelated criminal matters, the People's witness at defendant's trial. The court, although conceding that People v. Wilkins, 28 N.Y.2d 53, 320 N.Y.S.2d 8, 268 N.E.2d 756, supra, is "not exactly on point ..." (101 Misc.2d, supra, p. 262, 420 N.Y.S.2d 868), adopted the Wilkins holding that knowledge gained by one Legal Aid attorney will not be imputed to another staff attorney when the attorneys are unaware of the dual representation. The Spencer court denied, without prejudice to renew, the District Attorney's application to relieve the Legal Aid Society of its assignment.
In Matter of Balter, 63 N.Y.2d 630, 479 N.Y.S.2d 506, 468 N.E.2d 688, the majority upheld a judge's adjudication of criminal contempt against an Assistant Public Defender who refused to obey the judge's order to proceed to trial representing a defendant even though counsel claimed that the Public Defender's Office was also representing the prosecution's principal witness in an unrelated matter. Judge Kaye, in a dissent in which former Chief Judge Cooke joined, found that counsel should not have been punished for refusing to "betray the interests of his clients ..." (63 N.Y.2d, supra, at 632, 479 N.Y.S.2d 506, 468 N.E.2d 688). Judge Kaye saw the trial judge's ruling as a denial of effective assistance of counsel to both the defendant and prosecution witness (63 N.Y.2d, supra, p. 632, 479 N.Y.S.2d 506, 468 N.E.2d 688).
Judge Kaye, in her dissent in Balter, did not cite People v. Wilkins, 28 N.Y.2d 53, 320 N.Y.S.2d 8, 268 N.E.2d 756, supra, which had been decided years prior.
In contrast, in People v. McDonald, 68 N.Y.2d 1, 505 N.Y.S.2d 824, 496 N.E.2d 844, a decision in which Judge Kaye concurred (decided after Balter ), the Court of Appeals in a footnote (supra, n. 4, p. 11, 505 N.Y.S.2d 824, 491 N.E.2d 844) reaffirmed its holding in People v. Wilkins, 28 N.Y.2d 53, 320 N.Y.S.2d 8, 268 N.E.2d 756, supra.
Other courts have also recognized that the Legal Aid Society is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Jalicia G.
...LAS have generally concluded that there is not. See, e.g., Wilkins, 28 N.Y.2d at 53, 320 N.Y.S.2d 8, 268 N.E.2d 756;People v. Chambers, 133 Misc.2d 868, 508 N.Y.S.2d 378 (Sup.Ct. Kings Co.1986); People v. Spencer, 101 Misc.2d 259, 420 N.Y.S.2d 868 (Sup.Ct. Kings Co.1979). These cases suppor......