Filed: Mar. 11, 2011
Latest Update: Mar. 11, 2011
Summary: NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION REMANDING STUMBO, JUDGE. Darryl Samuels is appealing his conviction of assault in the second degree. He argues that his trial was unfair because his counsel, an attorney from the Paducah Trial Office of the Department of Public Advocacy (DPA), had a conflict of interest in that she had previously represented two potential prosecution witnesses and her office had represented the victim. 1 The potential conflict was brought to the trial court's attention by defense
Summary: NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION REMANDING STUMBO, JUDGE. Darryl Samuels is appealing his conviction of assault in the second degree. He argues that his trial was unfair because his counsel, an attorney from the Paducah Trial Office of the Department of Public Advocacy (DPA), had a conflict of interest in that she had previously represented two potential prosecution witnesses and her office had represented the victim. 1 The potential conflict was brought to the trial court's attention by defense c..
More
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
OPINION REMANDING
STUMBO, JUDGE.
Darryl Samuels is appealing his conviction of assault in the second degree. He argues that his trial was unfair because his counsel, an attorney from the Paducah Trial Office of the Department of Public Advocacy (DPA), had a conflict of interest in that she had previously represented two potential prosecution witnesses and her office had represented the victim.1 The potential conflict was brought to the trial court's attention by defense counsel. Defense counsel also gave Samuels a document setting forth the reasons for the potential conflict and requested that he sign it in order to waive any objection to being represented by her. Samuels refused to sign the document or waive any conflict.
A hearing was held in the judge's chambers and the court found no conflict. However, due to a technological malfunction, the audio of the taped hearing is almost inaudible. What little that can be discerned shows that there was very little questioning concerning whether or not the Paducah DPA was actively representing the two witnesses and victim. Defense counsel, however, thought that the victim may have still been an active client.
A defendant's right to counsel is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. A conflict of interest occurs when one attorney represents two clients with conflicting interests. This is not limited to the realm of codefendants. In Beard v. Commonwealth, 302 S.W.3d 643 (Ky. 2010), the Kentucky Supreme Court held that an attorney who was representing one client who was testifying against another client had a conflict of interest. In that case, the Court reversed Beard's conviction.
In the case at hand, defense counsel believed that there may be a conflict of interest to the point that she requested Samuels sign a document that would waive any objection. Because a conflict of interest is such a pivotal question, we find that a new hearing is required, complete with findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court should determine if the two witnesses and victim were being actively represented by Samuels' defense counsel or the Paducah DPA in general and whether or not there was a conflict of interest.
We therefore remand this case to the circuit court for an evidentiary hearing.
ALL CONCUR.
