People v. Murphy
990 N.E.2d 815
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Murphy was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder, sentenced to consecutive 55-year and 25-year terms, appellate review granted.
- Trial counsel Baker simultaneously represented Murphy and Shawn Stanley, a state’s witness, during pretrial and trial phases.
- Stanley testified; the state admitted his videotaped statement under 115-10.1 and Stanley identified Murphy as a participant in the attack.
- OSAD discovered Baker’s representation of Stanley in a separate Macon County case during pretrial, including a guilty plea by Stanley in 2010 for related offenses.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial on the ground of a per se conflict of interest arising from contemporaneous representation.
- The opinion analyzes Dopson and Fields to determine whether the per se conflict rule applies to contemporaneous representation, including pretrial involvement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does contemporaneous representation of a prosecution witness create a per se conflict? | Murphy: per se conflict under Dopson, broadened by Fields. | State: Fields supersedes Dopson; no per se conflict unless contemporaneous trial representation. | Yes, per se conflict exists; remand for new trial. |
| Did Fields invalidate our Dopson framework for contempo raneous representation? | Murphy: Fields undermines Dopson’s rationale. | State: Fields narrows but does not foreclose per se conflicts. | Fields invalidated Dopson’s basis; nonetheless per se conflict can apply in Murphy's context. |
| Should pretrial contemporaneous representation count as per se conflict? | Murphy: pretrial overlap harms right to unconflicted counsel. | State: contemporaneous means same time; limited to trial. | Pretrial contemporaneous representation falls within per se conflict; remand supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Dopson, 2011 IL App (4th) 100014 (2011) (per se conflict when defense counsel represents State witness)
- People v. Fields, 2012 IL 112438 (2012) (contemporaneous representation of witness constitutes per se conflict; Field limits prior representation)
- People v. Thomas, 131 Ill. 2d 104 (1989) (contemporaneous representation of informant/witness can create per se conflict)
- People v. Flores, 128 Ill. 2d 66 (1989) (no clear proof defense represented witness at trial; contemporaneous rule discussed)
- People v. Strohl, 118 Ill. App. 3d 1084 (1983) (earlier view on contemporaneous representation during trial)
- People v. Taylor, 237 Ill. 2d 374 (2010) (defines the three per se conflict scenarios)