People v. Shinkle

Decision Date18 December 1980
Citation434 N.Y.S.2d 918,415 N.E.2d 909,51 N.Y.2d 417
Parties, 415 N.E.2d 909 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. David Dunlop SHINKLE, Appellant.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
OPINION OF THE COURT

JONES, Judge.

Defendant's conviction must be vacated where the executive director of the Legal Aid Society who represented him in the beginning stages of the criminal action later joined the District Attorney's office and remained there during the course of prosecution of the action, notwithstanding that means were designed and scrupulously pursued to insulate him from defendant's case.

On March 8, 1977, the day after the events out of which the charges in this case arose, Sol Lesser, Esq., of the Legal Aid Society of Sullivan County, Inc., was assigned to represent defendant. Edward Leopold, Esq., then executive director of the Legal Aid Society, became actively involved as advisor to Lesser during the early stages of the criminal proceeding. In this capacity Leopold interviewed defendant extensively, was intimately familiar with the contents of his file, and assisted in the formulation of defense strategy. On December 23, 1977 Leopold resigned as executive director of the Legal Aid Society, and on January 12, 1978 he was appointed Chief Assistant District Attorney for Sullivan County and continued in that capacity during the trial of this action.

Conscious of the risks of conflict of interest, Leopold had "CONFLICT" stickers placed on all pending cases in which the defendants were or had been represented by the Legal Aid Society during his tenure of office, the members of the staff of the District Attorney's office were ordered to refrain from discussing any of such cases with Leopold, and he was denied access to the files in such cases.

In late January, 1978, a proceeding under CPLR article 78 was instituted on defendant's behalf to restrain the District Attorney's office from prosecuting defendant because of conflict of interest and prejudice in consequence of the Leopold appointment. On February 22 the application was denied without prejudice to the right to apply to the Trial Judge for similar relief when the case was reached for trial. On reargument of the application in April the court adhered to its original decision. Defendant thereafter made a similar application to the trial court and that application, too, was denied. At the time of defendant's trial from June 26 to July 7, 1978 Leopold was still Chief Assistant District Attorney of Sullivan County.

In affirming defendant's conviction of rape in the first degree, petit larceny, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and assault in the third degree, the Appellate Division, with two Justices dissenting, rejected defendant's contention that his convictions should be reversed because of the dual role played by Leopold, 73 A.D.2d 764, 423 N.Y.S.2d 549. This was error, and the convictions must be vacated.

The fact that the attorney who had initially represented defendant and participated actively in the preparation of his defense was chief assistant in the office of the prosecutor in the months preceding and during defendant's trial inescapably gave both defendant and the public the unmistakable appearance of impropriety and created the continuing opportunity for abuse of confidences entrusted to the attorney during the months of his active representation of defendant. It is no answer that defendant offers no evidentiary proof of actual prejudice. In the circumstances such proof would most likely be out of defendant's reach. Nor does it serve to protect the interests of defendant that procedures were devised and scrupulously followed to insulate Leopold from the prosecution of this case. The inherent impropriety of the situation is further demonstrated in this instance when, in an attempt to show that the insulation was practically effective, the People circuitously resorted to an affirmation from Leopold himself. In defendant's perception it was his former attorney who was personally championing the People's cause against him.

Defendant, and indeed the public at large, are entitled to protection against the appearance of impropriety and the risk of prejudice attendant on abuse of confidence, however slight (cf. People v. Zimmer, 51 N.Y.2d 390, 434 N.Y.S.2d 206, 414 N.E.2d 705; Greene v. Greene, 47 N.Y.2d 447, 418 N.Y.S.2d 379, 391 N.E.2d 1355; Cardinale v. Golinello, 43 N.Y.2d 288, 401 N.Y.S.2d 191, 372 N.E.2d 26; People v. De Freese, 71 A.D.2d 689, 690, 418 N.Y.S.2d 959 (dissenting opn. by Mr. Justice JAMES D. HOPKINS); ABA Standards Relating to Prosecution Function, § 1.2; subds. (a), (b), par. (iii); Code of Professional Responsibility, canon 9). We recognize that the rule applied in this case may impede the transfer of attorneys between offices of Legal Aid or Public Defender and of District Attorney. This circumstance, however, affords no basis to deny defendants the right to both the fact and appearance of unswerving and exclusive loyalty on the part of attorneys who represent them.

For the reasons stated, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, defendant's convictions vacated, and the case remitted to County Court, Sullivan County, for further proceedings on the indictment.

JASEN, Judge (dissenting).

Upon the conceded facts and circumstances present in this case, I would not hold, as the majority does, that it was improper for the Sullivan County District Attorney's office to prosecute defendant Shinkle merely because a member of its staff had at one time acted as defendant's cocounsel while a member of the Sullivan County Legal Aid staff.

To adopt, as the majority has, a per se disqualification rule effecting the entire staff of the office of the District Attorney, without a showing of prejudice or without requiring that even a question as to the integrity of the office of the District Attorney be raised, is both unnecessary and undesirable as a matter of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
96 cases
  • State v. Pennington
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • March 16, 1993
    ...State v. Ross, 829 S.W.2d 948 (Mo.1992) (en banc); Fitzsimmons v. State, 116 Neb. 440, 218 N.W. 83 (1928); People v. Shinkle, 51 N.Y.2d 417, 434 N.Y.S.2d 918, 415 N.E.2d 909 (1980); State v. Cooper, 63 Ohio Misc. 1, 409 N.E.2d 1070 (1980); State v. Stenger, 111 Wash.2d 516, 760 P.2d 357 (19......
  • People v. Thompson
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 2, 1981
    ...the fact that no inquiry was made into the prosecutor's reasons for his use of peremptory challenges. (Cf. People v. Shinkle, 51 N.Y.2d 417, 434 N.Y.S.2d 918, 415 N.E.2d 909 (1980).) Moreover, in the context of this case, it does not appear that the interests underlying the fair cross-secti......
  • People v. Payton
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 14, 2012
    ...[3d ed.] ). The New York Court of Appeals has also recognized the existence of per se conflicts ( see People v. Shinkle, 51 N.Y.2d 417, 420, 434 N.Y.S.2d 918, 415 N.E.2d 909). Both courts have recognized that a per se conflict does not require a showing that the conflict either prejudiced t......
  • Young v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 29, 1983
    ...from the prosecution in this case, because even the appearance of unfairness cannot be permitted." Id. In People v. Shinkle, 51 N.Y.2d 417, 415 N.E.2d 909, 434 N.Y.S.2d 918 (1980), the Court of Appeals of New York vacated a defendant's conviction because the attorney who had represented him......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Conflicts of interest in criminal cases: should the prosecution have a duty to disclose?
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 47 No. 3, June 2010
    • June 22, 2010
    ...faith of former counsel who was employed by prosecutor's office by time defendant pleaded guilty). (87.) See, e.g., People v. Shinkle, 415 N.E.2d 909, 910 (N.Y. 1980) (observing that when former defense counsel joined prosecutor's office, "conflict" stickers were placed on all pending cases......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT