2:07-cr-00550
E.D. Pa.Sep 12, 2013Background
- Defendant Kidada Savage was convicted by a jury on multiple counts, including RICO conspiracy and murder in aid of racketeering, following a lengthy joint trial with co-defendants.
- Government disclosed a potential conflict: trial attorney Christopher Phillips previously served briefly as an ADA and was assigned to prosecute the Lassiter murder (Mitchell case) years earlier.
- Assignment memo from 2003 showed Phillips’s brief involvement; he did not review discovery, meet witnesses, or take actions on that file during a nine-day assignment.
- Independent counsel was appointed to represent Savage on conflict issues; the Government and Savage briefed and a June 17, 2013 hearing was held after verdict.
- The court found Phillips did not access confidential information or perform substantive work in the Lassiter/Mitchell matters, and the conflicts were not unwaivable under ethical rules.
- The court denied Savage’s motion for mistrial but appointed new counsel for sentencing and potential appeal to address any lingering attorney-client relationship issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| whether Phillips’s prior Lassiter/Mitchell assignment created an actual conflict | Savage argues concurrent conflict of interest violated Rule 1.7(a) and Sixth Amendment rights. | Savage contends any prior assignment was serious, unwaivable, and prejudiced counsel’s loyalty. | No actual conflict; Sixth Amendment and ethical rules not violated; mistrial denied. |
| whether the post-verdict opposition to mistrial constituted a new conflict | Savage claims Phillips’s opposition to the mistrial motion created adverse loyalty conflicts. | Savage asserts a new conflict by taking a position adverse to her after the trial. | No new conflict; no prejudice shown; mistrial denied, though new counsel appointed for sentencing/appeal. |
| whether the conflict analysis should rely on Sixth Amendment standards or Pennsylvania ethics rules | Savage argues for Sixth Amendment-based analysis of actual conflicts. | Savage urges strictly ethical-rule analysis with per se mistrial implications. | Both standards yield same result; no prejudicial conflict found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980) (actual conflict requires showing adverse effect on counsel’s performance)
- Gambino, 864 F.2d 1064 (3d Cir. 1988) (conflict requires showing divergence in defendant’s interests affecting trial)
- United States v. Stout, 723 F. Supp. 297 (E.D. Pa. 1989) (Sixth Amendment/Loyalty in conflict analysis)
- United States v. Wecht, No. 06-26, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34957 (W.D. Pa. 2008) (district court conflict considerations in high-profile cases)
- Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985 (3d Cir. 1980) (presumed access to confidential information supports disqualification)
- United States v. Camiel, 519 F. Supp. 1248 (E.D. Pa. 1981) (timing of objection to conflict affects applicable standard)
- Zellner v. Rubacky, 987 F. Supp. 406 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (potential conflicts must affect adequacy of representation)
- Capozzi, 204 F. App’x 996 (2d Cir. 2006) ( Sixth Amendment rights not sacrificed by trial counsel conflict findings)