Lexplug logoLexplug

State v. White

Tennessee Supreme Court
114 S.W.3d 469, 2003 Tenn. LEXIS 828, 2003 WL 22071549 (2003)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An attorney's simultaneous service as a part-time prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney within the same county creates an actual, non-waivable conflict of interest. This inherent conflict requires disqualification because the duties owed to the State are fundamentally antagonistic to the duties owed to a criminal defendant.


Facts:

  • Since 1992, Mark S. McDaniel served as a part-time prosecutor for the Town of Collierville in Shelby County, Tennessee, prosecuting municipal ordinance violations.
  • In 1996, the District Attorney of Shelby County also appointed McDaniel to serve as an assistant district attorney, authorizing him to prosecute state criminal law violations in Collierville Municipal Court.
  • On October 29, 1999, Jeremy White was involved in an incident in Shelby County that led to him being charged with several serious felonies.
  • White retained McDaniel to serve as his defense counsel for the charges.
  • Throughout his representation of White, McDaniel continued to serve in his dual roles as a part-time prosecutor for Collierville and an assistant district attorney for Shelby County.
  • White testified that he was aware of McDaniel's prosecutorial roles and agreed to waive any potential conflict of interest.

Procedural Posture:

  • Jeremy White was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury on May 2, 2000.
  • The Board of Professional Responsibility issued an advisory ethics opinion stating that an attorney serving as a part-time prosecutor while also representing criminal defendants in the same district was unethical.
  • Based on the opinion, the State of Tennessee filed a motion in the Criminal Court for Shelby County (trial court) to disqualify White's attorney, Mark S. McDaniel.
  • The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and granted the State's motion, finding a 'perceived' conflict of interest that White could not waive.
  • White (appellant) was granted an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
  • The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's disqualification order but on the grounds that an 'actual' conflict of interest existed.
  • White (appellant) then appealed to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, which granted review of the case.

Locked

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 attorney's dual role as a part-time assistant district attorney and a criminal defense attorney within the same county create an actual conflict of interest that requires the attorney's disqualification, even if the defendant wishes to waive the conflict?


Opinions:

Majority - Not specified

Yes. An attorney's dual roles as a prosecutor and defense counsel in the same jurisdiction create an actual conflict of interest requiring disqualification. The ethical obligations of these roles are inherently antagonistic; a prosecutor's duty is to serve the public and seek justice for the State, while a defense attorney's duty is to be a zealous and loyal advocate for the accused. McDaniel could not exercise independent professional judgment free of 'compromising interests and loyalties' because his duty to prosecute on behalf of the State was in direct opposition to his duty to defend White against the State. This conflict cannot be unilaterally waived by the defendant, as the State is also a client whose interests are affected and has not consented to the waiver. The court's independent interest in ensuring trials are conducted ethically and appear fair outweighs the defendant's conditional right to counsel of choice in cases of actual conflict.



Analysis:

This decision establishes a per se, or automatic, rule in Tennessee that an attorney cannot concurrently serve as a public prosecutor and a criminal defense lawyer in the same jurisdiction. It elevates the principles of professional ethics and the institutional integrity of the justice system above a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice when an actual conflict exists. By defining this specific dual-role situation as an inherent and non-waivable conflict, the court provides a clear, bright-line rule that prevents future case-by-case analyses of potential prejudice. This holding reinforces the fundamentally adversarial nature of the justice system and clarifies that the duties to the State and to a criminal defendant are irreconcilable.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query State v. White (2003) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for State v. White