State v. Goldsberry, 18 A.3d 836

Goldsberry and Myers were tried jointly for murder-related offenses in Prince George's County; Braxton testified to a robbery and shooting by Goldsberry and Myers,” resulting in felony murder and related convictions.
Goldsberry hired three privately retained attorneys (Jezic, McKenzie, Giannetti); McKenzie spoke with co-defendant Myers before Myers had representation, raising potential conflicts.
The trial court disqualified McKenzie from representing Goldsberry, citing Rule 1.18, Rule 4.2 and potential witness issues, although Jezic remained as lead counsel.
The court’s instruction to the jury distinguished first and second degree felony murder, and the jury asked for clarification; the court reiterated the elements and the differences.
Court of Special Appeals reversed some convictions, holding second degree felony murder predicated on attempted armed robbery was a “non-existent” crime and criticized the unanimity instruction; Goldsberry sought certiorari.
The Court granted review to resolve: (i) Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice, (ii) unanimity instruction, (iii) validity of the second degree felony murder conviction; the Court reverses in part and remands for a new trial consistent with this opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Counsel of choice disqualification	Goldsberry argues the trial court violated Wheat by disqualifying his chosen McKenzie.	Goldsberry asserts the court balanced interests; McKenzie posed conflicts.	Yes; violation of Sixth Amendment; new trial ordered.
Unanimity instruction coerciveness	Goldsberry claims the unanimity instruction coerced deliberations.	State contends instruction complied with pattern jury instructions.	Not addressed on the merits due to remand for new trial.
Second degree felony murder predicated on attempted armed robbery	State argues second degree murder arises from the underlying felony’s nature; the verdict is valid for felony murder.	Goldsberry contends the instruction created a “non-existent” crime and should be reversed.	The Court agrees the underlying framework allows retrial on felony murder with a 30-year cap if convicted, and remands for new trial consistent with this ruling.

Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (U.S. Supreme Court 1988) (right to counsel of choice limited by conflict concerns; presumption in favor of counsel of choice may be overcome by serious potential for conflict)
Gonzales v. State, 408 Md. 515 (Md. 2009) (further development of Sixth Amendment rights in Maryland context)
McCleary v. State, -- (Md. 1914) (early articulation of counsel of choice rights in Maryland)