On Point blog, page 1 of 1
Conflict of Interest – Representation of Defendant by Prosecutor in Prior Case – Generally
State v. Christopher M. Medina, 2006 WI App 76
For Medina: Daniel P. Ryan
Issue/Holding: A claim that the prosecutor represented the defendant in a prior case may be raised in a pretrial motion to disqualify the prosecutor, which requires a showing that “the subject matter of the two representations are ‘substantially related,’” ¶15, quoting State v. Tkacz, 2002 WI App 281,
Counsel – Conflict of Interest – Representation of Defendant by Prosecutor in Prior Case – Pretrial Motion to Disqualify, Timeliness
State v. Christopher M. Medina, 2006 WI App 76
For Medina: Daniel P. Ryan
Issue: Whether a motion to disqualify a prosecutor because of representation of defendant in a prior case, brought immediately before jury selection, may be deemed waived on timeliness grounds.
Holding:
¶24 We conclude the circuit court may, in the proper exercise of its discretion, deny a motion to disqualify a prosecutor under the substantial relationship standard if the motion is untimely.
Counsel – Conflict of Interest – Representation of Defendant by Prosecutor in Prior Case – Postconviction Motion to Disqualify – Actual Conflict Required
State v. Christopher M. Medina, 2006 WI App 76
For Medina: Daniel P. Ryan
Issue/Holding:
¶33 The circuit court here accepted the district attorney’s testimony that he did not remember any conversation with Medina during the prior representation. It also found that the district attorney did not refer to any information at sentencing from the prior representation that was not a matter of public record.
Counsel – Conflict of Interest – Prior Representation by Prosecutor: Unrelated Civil Forfeiture
State v. Peter G. Tkacz, 2002 WI App 281, PFR filed 11/14/02
For Tkacz: Mark S. Rosen
Issue: Whether the prosecutor’s prior representation of the defendant in a civil forfeiture worked a disqualifying conflict of interest.
Holding: The standard for analyzing the existence of a conflict of interest (raised before trial) in serial representation is the “substantial relationship” test, ¶15 ( State v.
Counsel – Conflict of Interest – Prior Representation by Prosecutor: “Reverse Representation”
State v. David Kalk, 2000 WI App 62, 234 Wis. 2d 98, 608 N.W.2d 428
For Kalk: John A. Pray, UW Law School
Issue: Whether the defendant satisfied his burden of showing an actual conflict of interest stemming from his prior representation by the prosecutor on an unrelated charge.
Holding: Given the trial court’s findings of historical fact, defendant did not show that his prosecution was influenced by the prior representation.Analysis: Kalk’s prosecutor had previously represented him on an unrelated charge.
Counsel – Conflict of Interest – Prior Appearance as Prosecutor
State v. Michael Love, 227 Wis.2d 60, 594 N.W.2d 806 (1999), reversing State v. Love 218 Wis.2d 1, 579 N.W.2d 277 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Love: Philip J. Brehm.
Holding: Love was represented at sentencing after revocation by an attorney who had been the prosecutor at the original sentencing, 20 months earlier; the attorney couldn’t remember appearing for the state at the original sentencing.