Commonwealth v. John Stote, March 5, 2010
456 Mass. 213
Actual Conflict of Interest.
The defendant appealed from his first-degree murder conviction, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel based upon an actual conflict of interest of his defense counsel because of an intimate personal relationship between the defense counsel and an assistant district attorney that was not disclosed to the defendant. The SJC found that the defendant did not meet his burden of showing an actual conflict of interest.
The ADA with whom the defense attorney was involved was in the appellate division of the office prosecuting the defendant but was not involved with or consulted on any matter regarding the defendant’s case. The court found that the relationship between the defense counsel and the ADA was not sufficiently serious so as to warrant an actual conflict: the relationship was not one of cohabitation or marriage (and thus less likely to have the “inadvertent breaches of confidentiality” that may be a concern in marriage), there was no evidence that defense counsel or the ADA developed any personal or financial interest in each other’s careers, and no evidence that the defense counsel had any incentive to provide a less than vigorous and full representation of the defendant. The court also noted that the Commonwealth had provided evidence negating the existence of an actual conflict through sworn statements given by the defense counsel, the ADA, and prosecutor who tried the defendant’s case.
In making these findings, the court compared the situation and evidence to that in Commonwealth v. Croken, 432 Mass. 266 (2000), wherein a similar claim was raised based upon the defense counsel’s serious and long-term relationship with an ADA. In Croken, the couple lived together, were eventually married and there were no sworn affidavits presented as to lack of conflict, but the court still refused to find an actual conflict. The SJC in the current case therefore was guided by that comparison.
Potential Conflict of Interest.
The defendant also argued ineffective assistance counsel based on a potential conflict of interest, arising from the same relationship between the defense counsel and the ADA. While a showing of actual conflict of interest would lead to a new trial without further showing, a showing of potential conflict of interest would only lead to a new trial if there was also a showing of “material prejudice” to his defense from that conflict. The SJC, while acknowledging a potential conflict stemming from the relationship, found that the defendant did not establish the existence of any material prejudice to his defense because he did not show that the counsel’s performance fell “measurably below” what might usually be expected from counsel and that the defendant was deprived of an otherwise available ground of defense. The SJC rejected the defendant’s claim that defense counsel failed to investigate, failed to make proper objections, and made certain omissions at trial because the defendant did not establish either that these alleged mistakes constituted ineffectiveness or that these alleged mistakes were a result of the relationship with the ADA.
The SJC did remind attorneys at the end of the opinion of their professional obligations to disclose any intimate personal relationships that might impair effective assistance of counsel and did encourage attorneys to err on the side of caution in disclosing these facts and relationships.
