State v. Kitt
442 P.3d 1280 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defense attorney has an actual conflict of interest that adversely affects their client's representation when the attorney's prior representation of a key adverse figure, whose actions are central to the state's theory of motive, ethically prohibits the attorney from using confidential information or pursuing a defense strategy beneficial to their current client.
Facts:
- LeShaun Alexander, a member of the Knoccout Crips street gang, shot at members of the rival Hilltop Crips gang, including Clifford Krentkowski, in the weeks leading up to May 1, 2015.
- On the morning of May 1, 2015, Alexander shot at Alexander Kitt, another member of the Hilltop Crips.
- In retaliation, Krentkowski, Kitt, Jermohnn Gore, and other Hilltop Crips members gathered in an Escalade with multiple firearms.
- The group planned to drive to a convenience store in Knoccout Crips territory, where Alexander and his fellow gang members were known to gather, and shoot at them.
- Upon arriving at the store, Kitt and Gore fired handguns from the vehicle in the direction of the store and the group of Knoccout Crips members that included Alexander.
- Krentkowski was in the vehicle with an AK-47 assault rifle on his lap but did not fire.
- A bullet fired from the Escalade struck and killed Brandon Morris, an unaffiliated bystander who was walking in a nearby alley.
- At the time of the shooting, Krentkowski was 17 years old.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Clifford Krentkowski, Alexander Kitt, and Jermohnn Gore in state trial court with murder in the first degree and multiple counts of assault.
- At the start of the joint trial, Krentkowski's counsel, Walter Peale, informed the court of a conflict of interest stemming from his prior representation of LeShaun Alexander, a rival gang member central to the case's facts.
- Peale moved to withdraw as counsel, but the trial court denied the motion, finding no conflict existed.
- Peale renewed his motion to withdraw several times throughout the trial as Alexander's role became more prominent, but the court denied each motion.
- The jury returned guilty verdicts against Krentkowski on all counts.
- Krentkowski appealed his convictions to the Washington Court of Appeals, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel due to the conflict of interest.
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 a defense attorney's prior representation of a rival gang member, whose actions were central to the State's theory of motive, create an actual conflict of interest that adversely affects the current client's representation, thereby violating the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel?
Opinions:
Majority - Melnick, J.
Yes, the defense attorney's prior representation created an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected Krentkowski's representation and violated his Sixth Amendment rights. To establish a Sixth Amendment violation for a conflict of interest, a defendant must show that an actual conflict adversely affected the lawyer's performance, at which point prejudice is presumed. An actual conflict exists when a lawyer owes duties to a party whose interests are adverse to the defendant. Here, Krentkowski's lawyer, Peale, had previously represented Alexander, the rival gang member who was the target of the shooting and whose prior actions provided the motive for the crime. Peale's duty of confidentiality to his former client, Alexander, under RPC 1.9(c) prevented him from exploring defense strategies involving Alexander's reputation, character, or role in the events, which could have been beneficial to Krentkowski. This limitation constituted an adverse effect on Peale's performance, as he was ethically constrained from pursuing a complete defense. The trial court's repeated refusal to grant Peale's motions to withdraw was therefore reversible error.
Analysis:
This case underscores the critical importance of a defense attorney's undivided loyalty to their client. The decision clarifies that an 'actual conflict' is not a mere possibility but a tangible limitation on an attorney's ability to advocate, particularly when a former client becomes a central figure in a current client's case. It establishes a strong precedent for trial courts to grant motions to withdraw in such situations, as refusal to do so constitutes reversible error and undermines the Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel. Future cases will likely cite this opinion to emphasize that once an actual conflict with an adverse effect is demonstrated, prejudice is presumed, and a new trial is warranted.
