Commonwealth v. Croken
2000 Mass. LEXIS 422, 733 N.E.2d 1005, 432 Mass. 266 (2000)
Rule of Law:
When a criminal defense attorney has an undisclosed intimate relationship with an assistant district attorney employed by the same office prosecuting the defendant, it raises a substantial issue of a potential conflict of interest, requiring an evidentiary hearing on a motion for a new trial to determine if justice may not have been done.
Facts:
- Richard Croken frequently babysat for his young cousins, Steve and Chris, who were related to him by marriage.
- One night when Chris was eight years old, Croken fondled his penis and performed fellatio on him while he slept at Croken’s home during a February vacation.
- The morning after the incident, Croken threatened Chris, telling him not to tell anyone or he would get hurt and disappear, and his mother would never find him.
- On several other occasions, Croken inserted his fingers or penis into Chris’s anus.
- When Steve was eight or nine in 1983 or 1984, Croken fondled his penis and threatened to hurt him if he told anyone.
- Chris first disclosed these events after Steve made a similar disclosure in 1993.
- Attorney Robert LaLiberte was appointed to represent Richard Croken from his arraignment in June 1993 through his sentencing in July 1996.
- During much, if not all, of LaLiberte's representation of Croken, he was involved in a close, intimate relationship with Jane Doe, an assistant district attorney employed by the same Plymouth district attorney's office that was prosecuting Croken; they eventually lived together and later married.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Croken was convicted in the Superior Court on two indictments for forcible rape of a child under sixteen and one indictment for indecent assault and battery on a child under fourteen.
- Croken filed a motion for a new trial in the Superior Court, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and a conflict of interest due to his trial counsel's undisclosed intimate relationship with an assistant district attorney.
- The trial judge denied Croken's motion for a new trial without an evidentiary hearing.
- Croken appealed his convictions and the denial of his new trial motion.
- The Appeals Court consolidated the direct appeal and the appeal of the new trial motion denial, holding that Croken was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his motion and ordered the case remanded to the Superior Court.
- The Commonwealth filed an application for further appellate review, which the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an undisclosed intimate relationship between a criminal defense attorney and an assistant district attorney, who works for the same office prosecuting the defendant, raise a substantial issue of a conflict of interest requiring an evidentiary hearing on a motion for a new trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Spina, J.
Yes, an undisclosed intimate relationship between a criminal defense attorney and an assistant district attorney from the same prosecuting office raises a substantial issue of a conflict of interest, requiring an evidentiary hearing on a motion for a new trial. The court affirmed Croken’s convictions but vacated the order denying his motion for a new trial, remanding the case to the Superior Court for an evidentiary hearing. Under Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 30(c)(3), a judge may rule on a motion for a new trial without an evidentiary hearing only if no “substantial issue” is raised by the motion or affidavits. A “substantial issue” requires consideration of both the seriousness of the issue and the adequacy of the defendant’s factual showing. The defendant’s affidavits, while factually underdeveloped, raised a serious question as to whether the attorney-client relationship might have been impaired, justifying an evidentiary hearing. Disciplinary Rule 5-101(A) mandates that a lawyer shall not accept employment if their professional judgment may be affected by personal interests, except with client consent after full disclosure. The court held that where a criminal defense lawyer has a close relative or intimate companion who is a colleague of the prosecutor, the rule's requirements must be met. LaLiberte should have determined if his representation would be adversely affected and, if not, disclosed the relationship to Croken for informed consent. The court distinguished between an “actual” conflict, which requires automatic reversal without a showing of prejudice, and a “potential” conflict, which requires a showing of actual prejudice. While the affidavits did not establish an actual conflict as a matter of law, they raised a substantial question about either an actual conflict or a potential conflict resulting in material prejudice. The court found the affidavit from Assistant District Attorney Sullivan insufficient because it did not address what Jane Doe knew or did regarding the case, nor did it dispute the lack of disclosure. The absence of affidavits from LaLiberte or Doe was also noted as unsettling. Regarding the prosecutor’s opening statement, the court found certain remarks improper as argument but did not find them so egregious as to require reversal or constitute improper vouching, especially given the judge's immediate jury instructions that statements of counsel were not evidence.
Analysis:
This case expands the definition of potential conflicts of interest to include intimate personal relationships between opposing counsel, not just traditional co-client representation. It establishes that a defendant does not need to fully prove an actual conflict or demonstrate prejudice initially to secure an evidentiary hearing, but merely needs to raise a 'substantial issue' through affidavits, which may be incomplete due to the private nature of such relationships. The ruling reinforces the ethical obligation of defense counsel for full disclosure and informed consent in cases involving such relationships, emphasizing the importance of independent professional judgment and maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the justice system. The court's emphasis on the inadequacy of the Commonwealth's response underscores the need for forthrightness in addressing allegations of professional misconduct.
