State v. Cook
2017 Ohio 7552
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Ashley N. Cook and Matthew W. Kish were charged separately in municipal court with misdemeanors arising from alleged physical abuse of Kish’s minor son; both were jointly represented by the same retained attorney.
- The court granted joinder of their cases for a single jury trial.
- The prosecutor offered Kish a plea to a lesser offense in exchange for his truthful testimony against Cook; Kish rejected the offer in open court and both defendants signed a disclosure of potential conflict.
- The State moved to disqualify the shared defense counsel because of the plea offer to Kish and the resulting potential for conflicting interests.
- The municipal court held an evidentiary hearing, found a potential conflict existed, disqualified the attorney, and denied the defendants’ waivers.
- The appellate court affirmed, concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in disqualifying counsel to protect the defendants’ Sixth Amendment rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by disqualifying the mutually retained attorney prior to trial | State: A plea offer to Kish in exchange for testimony creates a conflict that justifies disqualification | Cook/Kish: Both knowingly waived any conflict and were satisfied with joint counsel; disqualification denies choice of counsel | Court: Affirmed disqualification — potential conflict existed; court may refuse waivers and protect right to conflict-free counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (presumptive right to counsel of choice may be overcome by a showing of actual or serious potential conflict)
- United States v. Gonzalez–Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (erroneous denial of counsel of choice is structural error)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (multiple representation carries inherent risk; court must inquire when it knows or reasonably should know of a conflict)
- Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (dual representation not per se invalid but is suspect when interests conflict)
- Keenan v. State, 81 Ohio St.3d 133 (trial court acted within discretion to disqualify counsel where potential conflict existed)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (Sixth Amendment protection extends to plea bargaining; ineffective advice may affect plea outcomes)
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (duty to communicate plea offers; right to effective assistance applies during plea negotiations)
- Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (defendant retains ultimate authority over certain decisions; counsel must consult and obtain consent for course of action)