People v. DOPSON, 958 N.E.2d 367

Dopson was convicted after a May 2006 bench trial of delivery of a controlled substance and possession with intent to deliver.
Anna Trotter, a confidential informant, testified against Dopson after cooperation with police gained in a prior arrest.
Trotter’s cooperation was secured in exchange for State promises not to charge her with possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia.
Trotter had multiple pending charges during the relevant period; Wright previously represented Trotter in related cases before representing Dopson at trial.
Wright cross-examined Trotter at Dopson’s trial but did not disclose his prior representation of her, and did not challenge pending charges in a way that would reveal bias.
Dopson filed a postconviction petition arguing ineffective assistance due to a per se conflict of interest arising from Wright’s representation of Trotter; the trial court denied the petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was a per se conflict of interest invalidating counsel's assistance	Dopson contends Wright's prior/contemporaneous representation of Trotter created a per se conflict.	People argues no per se conflict since representation was not contemporaneous at trial and did not involve commingled charges.	Per se conflict established; reversal warranted.

People v. Taylor, 237 Ill.2d 356 (2010) (per se conflict extends beyond trial-time representation to protect impeachment and credibility concerns)
People v. Hernandez, 231 Ill.2d 134 (2008) (conflict-free representation requirement; standard for ineffective assistance)
People v. Daly, 341 Ill.App.3d 372 (2003) (per se conflict rule; breadth to protect privilege and prevent prejudice)
People v. Ramey, 152 Ill.2d 41 (1992) (cross-examination of witness bias; pending charges probative of motive)
People v. Paisley, 149 Ill.App.3d 556 (1986) (pending charges may be shown to indicate bias or motive to testify)