Sinclair v. State

OF MARYLAND v. STATE SINCLAIR Term, 83, September 1975.] [No. September

Decided and C. argued before Singley, was J., Murphy, The cause Eldridge O’Donnell, Levine, JJ. Smith, Digges, Kimmel Morton Richard were Spiller, with whom H. Paul London on the Bradley Fred S. Kimmel, Spiller & brief, appellant. General, Attorney Raum, Assistant A.

Bernard General, Attorney Burch, B. Francis were whom General, Attorney on the Sharp, Assistant W. Clarence appellee. brief, for J., Court. opinion of the

Digges, J., the delivered Smith, page concurring opinion at a filed in result and concurs 261infra. a state’s to consider whether granted certiorari

We public policy and the attorney, with this State’s consistent is in cause an accused a criminal process to which due participate a entitled, may initiate or constitutionally in a conflicting private interest he has a when prosecution great importance to the Although it is matter. civil system justice in this criminal administration by this previously addressed question has not been exact this Court. Sinclair, was Philippe Andre defendant-petitioner,

The County by Court for Caroline jury the Circuit convicted violating the Worthless Check (Wise, J.) five counts of on Vol.), Repl. Art. Act, Maryland (1957, 1976 Code § imprisonment. term of to serve a substantial and sentenced Special Appeals, Court, in the In as he did Court this prosecutors who initiated that Sinclair contends his trial had a prosecution represented the State at reversal of his interest which mandates conflict conclude, out for reasons which will be set We conviction. evidentiary hearing required is order to presently, that an petitioner; accordingly, question raised we resolve purpose. trial court for that remand the case to the will cause, understanding presented in this of the issue an For facts disclosed in some detail the must set out dispute The Great Oak Underlying this entire record. on complex located Lodge, hotel, and marina restaurant Bay, Creek, Chesapeake near an arm of the Fairlee County, Maryland. lodge, during in Kent Chestertown operated by Sinwellan 1973, was summer of president. was the The record Corporation, of which Sinclair chef, resort, through its executive discloses Packing Meat frequently meat from the Fulton ordered Massachusetts, pursuant and that Company, located lodge by shipped common Fulton meat to those orders separate between On five occasions carrier a C.O.D.basis. 31,1973, lodge accepted by July August meat sent 13 and the separate presented the carrier with five Fulton and return checks, $14,046.88, signed by corporate totaling course, by checks, in were petitioner. These due received Fulton, them, attempted to cash each was but when Fulton, for returned the drawee bank insufficient funds. occasions, respect to these on several contacted Sinclair they “Redeposit him ... checks and was told to them are right.” redeposit, however, Upon the checks bounced all again.

Subsequently, Attorney on November the State’s County, Cooper, for Kent in the Richard R. filed circuit court county against of that a 20-count criminal information Corporation, charging Sinclair and the Sinwellan them with pretenses 27, 140) 27, 142) (Art. (Art. false and fraud § § given connection with the five checks to Fulton. After the trial, pleaded guilty jury a defendants and elected January 22,1974, was removed to the Circuit Court County request attorney. for Caroline at the of the state’s days Deputy Attorney Three later the State’s for Kent County, Wadkovsky, Basil filed a in the motion Caroline County delay requesting court in the trial date which reasons,

listed, following ground in addition to other granting the motion: for has made certain

“That the Defendant Attorney concerning the allegations State’s Attorney request required to has the State’s Maryland appoint to Governor of the State prosecute Attorney these cases. That the General Attorney General who has been Assistant tentatively assigned prosecution to handle the county is in trial in another and will not the State prosecute these cases for at least two be available please copy (2) months. Attached find a of [the attorney’s] state’s letter Governor Mandel.” indicated, appended letter, As to the motion was a dated January 24, 1974, from the governor, to the portion the relevant of which reads: County “Kent prosecution involved Philippe one Andre Sinclair and the Sinwellan Corporation, both of whom were indicted on 30,1973, County. charges October in Kent arose out Lodge of a transfer of Great Oak and Yacht Club. transpired

“Certain have events which have incapable handling rendered prosecution. me These have events been discussed with Clarence W. Sharp, Chief of the Criminal Division of the Attorney General’s Office.

“I therefore, hereby request Attorney prosecution General’s Office handle the of these cases.”

Apparently relying, part, at least in on those two documents, the they defendants going concluded that were V, 3, Maryland permits attorney the Article Constitution the § general the prosecute by to actions on of the State when directed do so behalf to Assembly. governor Additionally, Maryland (1974), or the General Code Article, (a), court, Proceedings Courts and 2-102 Judicial allows the in § circumstances, appoint “assistant counsel for the State.” See appropriate to (1957, 1976Repl. Vol.), 10, also Art. Code 41.§ by other than and prosecuted Cooper be someone to however, pretrial Wadkovsky. belief, was shattered at a This 4, 1974, April on when Cooper conducted conference record, that he indicated, undisclosed and for reasons try the case. The defendants’ Wadkovsky intended to, file, among April a motion reaction was disqualify well as things, the information as other dismiss in Wadkovsky participation from further Cooper and copy of to the motion was both a prosecution. Attached 24, January letter of and an affidavit previously-quoted Sinclair which asserted:

“(1) Attorney, Cooper, That the Richard State’s Deputy Attorney, Wadkovsky, and the State’s Basil partnership practice hold themselves out as a Chestertown, Maryland; of law (2) Wadkovsky That Basil is or has acted as attorney Maryland for the National Bank and such against Bank holds a note Frank and Ethel Russell Realty, Inc.; Oak Great Estates (3) Attorney Cooper is or That State’s has been Tilley against for Carrol who holds a note Club, Oak Resort Yacht the Russells Great & Inc.

(4) defendant, Philippe That A. Sinclair during negotiations 1972 and 1973 was involved [in purchase of Yacht Great Oak Resort & for] Club, Inc., Realty, Inc., and Great Oak Estates the lands Frank and Ethel Russell. Attorney Cooper Deputy

(5) State’s That Attorney Wadkovsky attempted to sell the State’s they Philippe any prior presentment Jury, the Grand Philippe A. that if

informed the defendant Sinclair appeal in the civil defendant filed an action entitled Club, Inc., Great Oak Resort Yacht et al. v. & Sinclair, al., he, Attorney Cooper, et State’s the defendant. would indict 29,1973. on (7) appeal was taken October Jury special (8) The Grand was called into day following appeal of the civil session on were action and indictments returned. appeal being behalf

(9) Previous to the filed on Jury given Sinclair, had been the Grand defendant presentments any in- but had not returned dictments.”

Although prosecutors the two did not controvert these allegations by way otherwise, of counter-affidavits or judge, April 17,1974, trial on denied the defendants’ motion hearing, pertinent part stating: in without a grounds mostly “The for relief consist of bald allegations. appear While it would therefrom that Attorney deputy State’s and/or his have antagonistic or even had or evinced an adverse nothing alleged interest, there is or inferable that any would conflict of interest or other indicate any way unduly prejudice posture which would represent the Defendants. The indictments action Jury, rather than that of the of the Grand prosecutor, any improper motivation of Attorney filing presentments State’s should be tactically. adversary pursued civilly In necessity proceeding opposing counsel must hostile, prosecutor and in the case of a he could be otherwise, yet perform competently that does not necessarily ground for dis indicate [a] qualification. situation seems to be the Such here.”2 Although grand appears that Sinclair was also indicted jury, charges petitioner were, fact, m

the an information filed of which the was convicted contained Attorney Cooper. State’s April When the trial commenced Caroline represented by Cooper was County, against Wadkovsky, nol-prossed counts all of the Sinwellan Corporation against all but five Sinclair. counts prosecution presented its After had defense permission, Cooper as attempted, to call but was denied witness; consequently, following made the the defense expected it to elicit from the proffer as to what attorney: to make concerns the proffer

“The which we wish Maryland from the check fact that to Cooper Mr. Bank, is a letter from National there Bank, asking Maryland for National behalf money. proffer ... deals payment The next of that an information that this is with the fact of all Cooper, an indictment. thrust not Mr. I I and as have proffers which will make

these indicated, the conflict with are connection Maryland is Bar third that the situation. The one meeting is Committee Association [Ethics] hearing for as whether to a date to tomorrow set regards proffer conflict. The next or not there is a newspapers Cooper, Mr. to comments made you Sinclair, regarding is either as well as Mr. proffer Cooper Mr. me. concerns that The next Pitkevitiz, think, I Mrs.

represented Mr. and Carl against along Wadkovsky, Sinwellan and Mr. with May Sinclair, I letter believe dated Mr. and that Cooper represented In Mr. addition with a Maryland Bank in connection National $20,000.00 approximate amount of judgment Corporation and had against Oaks the Great dealings Sinwellan. In with Sinclair and numerous addition, discussions and were numerous there Cooper at arguments Mr. had with Mr. that Sinclair time, Mr. Sinclair was a time when at presence of represented by counsel and out of the everything plea from the counsel connection with you pay if bargaining the effect that some charges drop most of the we will these bills plea bargaining. regarding And things to that effect Cooper light of this conflict Mr. finally that outrageous pressed [($95,000)], bail sought and highest ever levied on the Eastern bail perhaps the is bail ever set this Shore, even in murder cases respectfully request high and for these reasons Cooper Mr. as a call we should be allowed to have the Court should and that [not] witness Cooper as a as the State’s Mr. witness disqualified Attorney.” Sinclair, testifying on Immediately thereafter, while behalf, by his he had was asked whether own attorney’s regard Cooper to the state’s spoken Cooper objected disqualifying himself from case. reply I answer think the requested proffer a of “because embarrassing” and involve a going because would is to be Wise, however, Cooper’s Judge denied collateral matter. colloquy place: following take request permitted the counsel)]: In [(defense KIMMEL connection “MR. Sinclair, you a did ever have Mr. with proffer, Judge 3. At of Wise commented: the conclusion this Cooper calling grounds Mr. of all of the for “The sum presenting this evidence is the same basis was submitted disqualification already in written motion for the of both the a Attorney Deputy Attorney; and the State’s and which conflict State’s turn I overruled I don’t feel there a denied. the. having sense of adverse interests .... It is a consistent ordinary Cooper Defendant, Sinclair, to the whether adverse interest Mr. excessive is certainly again, grounds something isit [not] else but present position disqualification for he had and does wherein Defendant, as counsel or confidant then turned [acted] prosecuted upon him. The here is what around and conflict based claims interest adverse to him on civil side defense was an to him criminal I then an interest adverse on the side. don’t Attorney disqualifies the State’s because as I said believe that ruling it motion, necessity, his must hostile and on the attitude be aggressive indeed if I must even be it is to be successful and Attorney qualified don’t can no more believe State’s be [dis] up things than was that. These mount to no more than [what] propose either have been. I included the motion should don’t retry testimony Cooper the matter and therefore the Mr. too, matter, Wadkovsky and of Mr. for that is declined and the proffer is refused.” Cooper regarding Mr. conversation it? prosecuting This case was I did. Yes

MR. SINCLAIR: February. I in late had heard to be supposed Cooper I with Mr. matter to discuss another told me that due telephone and he him on the called resigning written to the Governor he had to a letter to certain events case due from this longer engage no transpired____he could had He told me at that prosecution of this case. in the a conflict of interest. he believed he had time

¤ ^{[*] [*]} you what this explain to heDid KIMMEL: MR. was? of interest

conflict

* * ^[*] very briefly and went into it We SINCLAIR: MR. Maryland Attorney General me that the he told he referred handling prosecution and would be Mr. I have to a matters, any problems that ... spoken to a think, me he had Cain, I or told letter, copy with me of the I have a a ... don’t ... copy that time .... I have a at

but did

[*] ^{[*] [*]} why explain you he said Did MR. KIMMEL: he he had a conflict? — exactly say

MR. A no he didn’t SINCLAIR: why he had a conflict.” guilty the five on each of jury a verdict returned On Judge pronounced sentence. Wise

counts and thereafter defendant’s Special Appeals, appeal to the Court of by Judge opinion in an authored conviction was affirmed Judge Morton, Judge joined, in and from which Lowe which 207, State, App. 340 Sinclair v. 27 Md. dissented. Davidson review the (1975). granted A. 2d 359 We certiorari propriety of this conviction. to a we now move

Having facts of this related the 252 powers responsibilities of the and of the

consideration office Maryland. office, attorney in That by of state’s which exists Maryland Constitution,4 great significance is of virtue of the prosecutions, as, regarding occupant criminal its is vested sovereign power However, of the State. with much of the extensively evolution, here elaborate on the need not nature attorneys Maryland, powers of state’s as that task recently thoroughly performed Judge Singley was so Murphy Yates, 475, 348 v. for this Court in 276 Md. A. 2d 837 attorneys in (1975). It is clear that state’s this State have very largely wide and unreviewable discretion as to whether pursue prosecution or not to of criminal offenses.5 Id. at 489, predecessors Wells, 495. As our observed Brack v. 86, 90, 40 (1944), Md. A. 2d 319 prosecutions persons crime,

“In ... accused of attorney] must exercise a sound [the distinguish guilty discretion to between the and the innocent. He must be trusted with broad official prosecute discretion to institute criminal causes, subject generally judicial control. The ministerial, purely office is one not but involves the learning general exercise of and discretion. As a rule, Attorney whether the State’s does or does not particular prosecution institute a is a which matter rests his discretion. Unless that discretion is grossly duty compelled such abused or statute or showing duty exists, there a clear that such ... controlling decision is and he is accountable for [his V, 7, Maryland 4. Article of the Constitution of mandates that there § City shall be an elected state’s several counties. Attorney in Baltimore and in each of the provides 9 of that Article Section that the “State’s perform prescribed by shall duties ... as shall be such law ....” this, Assembly, Maryland The General (1957,1976 Repl. Vol.), shall connection with 10, enacted Code attorneys 34, proclaims Art. that state’s § defend, part “prosecute on the all in which cases Murphy Yates, 475, See State be interested ....” v. 276 Md. A. 2d 837(1975). attorney’s prosecute, 5. The state’s decision whether to an exercise of his Yates, discretionary Murphy supra, Md. at “awesome may v. power,” impact only great person involved, will well have a on the as not person’s liberty property stake, be at but also whether he ac- quires lasting stigma of a criminal record.

253 (Citation to no one other than the electorate.]” omitted.) 288, 296, See v. 114 Ewell 207 Md. (1955). 66

A. 2d Sinclair, however, argue Attorney not does that State’s Attorney Cooper Deputy Wadkovsky State’s do not have regard pursuing terminating broad discretion with Rather, petitioner prosecutions. asserts that he was deprived impartial discretion, of the exercise of that process trial, Cooper thus of due and a fair because Wadkovsky, representation parties due their various as legal involving private in civil matters counsel Sinclair and Corporation, the Sinwellan had an interest the outcome of obligations which with the criminal trial conflicted their prosecutors employment and colored the of their official discretion. earlier, previously

As we this Court has not indicated been however, presented precise problem; with we have had (although involving occasion cases to decide attorneys) may edges be considered to be around its general principles. instance, and to involve the same For Derlin, years ago, over 50 in Derlin v. 142 Md. (1923), upon

A. 27 this Court frowned situation which an attorney represented conflicting interests, quoted two following approval language from R.C.L. ¶ 51: attorney

“An at law who has once been retained client, and received the confidence of a is thereafter disqualified acting person from other adversely general matter, interested the same slight may however such adverse interest be. Nor does it matter that the intention and motive of the rigid one, are honest. This rule is a designed prevent not alone to the dishonest practitioner conduct, from fraudulent but as well to preclude practitioner putting the honest from position required himself in a where he be conflicting duties, choose between be led to an conflicting attempt interests, to reconcile rather rights than to enforce to their full extent the represent.” interest which he should alone See Rippon Dep., 215, 223, v. 213 Md. Mercantile-Safe (1957). 131A. 2d 695 recently, Montgomery County Walker, in v. More Md. 228 (1962), involving 180 A. 2d 865 a case the unusual party arguing public circumstance of that a official should a considering disqualified zoning not have himself from a public policy case, requires that no we concluded “that interest, public personal pecuniary who has a or officer indirect, participate direct or in the outcome of a case should Additionally, pointed by Judge in that matter.” out and, think, persuasive in in Davidson her lucid dissent case, State, supra, 227-28, App. Sinclair v. 27 Md. at Appeals, by way dictum, suggested of of in Coblentz v. Court 558, 570-71, (1933), that, although 164 166 45 Md. A. statutory requirement grand jurors is no or other that there nevertheless, unprejudiced, grand juror if a has be a gain pecuniary prosecution, in a such that interest he could by acquittal, might or then or lose a conviction he be State, 24 disqualified. Hopkins App. 53, 59-68, v. Md. 329 Cf. denied, (1975). job 274 (1974), A. cert. Md. 728 of 2d course, grand jurors, bring is to whether decide way indictment; similarly, charges by of an criminal one attorneys’ responsibilities is to whether to the state’s decide charges by way bring of an information. These criminal suggest controlling is decisions seem to what we think clearly prosecutor has, if or would principle of this case: a having knowledge appear person of the to a reasonable have, any pecuniary interest or a pertinent facts to in significant personal interest a civil matter which obligation impartially in impair his a criminal matter act accused, is, on the both State and the then he toward policy, public disqualified from basis of this State’s prosecution criminal initiating participating or corollary principle prosecutor is that if a to this cause.6 The principle public policy, Since this is dictated this State’s we need not, specifically not, equally required do reach the issue of whether it is process. growing as a matter of constitutional due We note that a Maryland jurisdictions private practice number of of law in his disqualified is involved official been should have who (by way charges of indictment bringing of in the capacity defendant, timely upon then information) against *7 dismissed, if a charges will such be objection* the capacity in the official participates prosecutor timely upon objection then prosecution new be and a trial resulting will reversed conviction ordered.8 just announced of law we have

Although principle Maryland cases, support for there is only by prior suggested our states. law of sister nature the case of more direct (1970). In criminal case Annot., 31 A.L.R.3d Cf. Motors, 386, 163 (L. Super. A. 2d 227 v. Detroit 62 N.J. State 1960), instance, indicted for crime the accused was Div. firm, law prosecutor of a at a time when the was a member in the representing was defendant member of which another subject involving regarding matter and same a civil suit the after the indictments The trial court dismissed similar facts. following apt observations: making the ago recognized that no man principle long was “The masters, adequately properly or serve two can [(now 6 subject matter of Canon this is the chief It 5)] of Ethics. is the Canons Professional Canon of public with interest and welfare inconsistent the (1957, attorneys regulated by prohibited 1976 is now See Code or statute. Repl. Vol.), 10, Art. 40.§ timely objection appellant 7. to in case made a We reiterate that the this so, prosecution; attorneys’ participation the while to the See in had he done reasonably having knowledge him alerted of facts to have sufficient conflict, of this have been different. existence a the result of case Jiminez, 97, 913, (1974). People 187 528 P. 2d v. Colo. 915-16 case, p. 248, supra, We, in this see the trial court conclude that unlike prove because, prejudice the defendant need not public policy, actual on the basis of presumed it will be to exist as a of law. v. matter See State Motors, 386, Super. 227, (L. 1960). Detroit 62 N.J. A. 2d 231 Div. In 163 this, when, State, 558, connection with v. 164 note that Coblentz Md. 569, (1933), 166 A. 45 an Court held that accused entitled to have quashed person appeared if an indictment an unauthorized before the grand jury, specifically irrespective we defendant could establish actual stated that he do of could so prejudice. Keyes whether the v. But cf. State, 80-81, (1964) (master 236 Md. 202 A. 2d had who waived juvenile jurisdiction court over defendant later became assistant attorney prosecuted defendant; state’s no master). as conviction affirmed prejudice charge relating no were because facts to disclosed to the any directly law enforcement officer or indirectly represent any person involved a matter, except any criminal or receive gain personal profit or arrest, as the result of the acquittal charged conviction of one with the infraction of law or in filing connection with the any charge----The such replete books are with indicating any appearance cases evil in connection public with administration of office avoided; particularly should and must be is this true those offices involved enforcement of the law.

* * ^[*] attorney have permit prosecuting “To an any civil interest of nature whatsoever directly indirectly, proceedings, and which proceedings involve similar facts or the same subject prosecution as a criminal then matter initiated, only give pending or can rise to thereafter suspicion concerning relating the motives prosecuting attorney involved, bring such disrepute public.” office into with the 163 A. 2d at 229-31. Tate, 1006, 171

In State v. another criminal 185 La. So. defendant, (1936), destroying who was convicted of gin dynamite, cotton contended that his motion to disqualify participating the district from in the granted case should prosecutor, have been because the private counsel, represented also a number of insurance companies in they civil suits brought against had the damages arising alleged defendant for out of his cotton gin-dynamiting Supreme activities. The Court of Louisiana agreed, conviction, stating annulled Tate’s that: conducting

“In prosecuting criminal case the attorney impartial, fair must be and see deprived any defendant is not of or constitutional statutory right, because is a judicial he quasi officer. dealing, rule, justice and fair

“This founded only of to restrain the offer think is intended orderly of rules illegal or the violation the evidence officers, also to procedure prosecuting but of in which in those cases require their recusation indirectly, may be interest, directly or such their impartial justice sacrifice them to to cause advantage. personal

[*] ^{[*] [*]} judicial attorney quasi officer. is a “The district no State, and the State demands represents the He impartial only, equal justice victims. It seeks duty the district much the of justice, is as man suffers as it see that no innocent escapes. he guilty man Therefore no to see that or extrinsic be involved interested should not unconsciously, consciously or might, matters which destroy impair power to conduct fairly impartially.” 171 So. at accused’s trial omitted). (citations prosecutor attorney-disciplinary in an And public practice with his private to conflict allowed his neighboring obligations, Supreme of our state Court principle: expressed same Delaware interests, represent conflicting lawyer “A cannot every duty of he owes to client because ordinarily loyalty. In civil cases he undivided conflict, whose choose between two clients interests required. public when But a full disclosure engage practice prosecutor permitted private private His has no such freedom of choice. interest yield public must to the one.

[*] ^{[*] [*]} “Now, [discretionary] power exercise — prosecute prosecuting officer the decision to — prosecute performance ... involves not to one of most difficult and delicate functions 258 requires weighing balancing

his office. It — may, do, interests that and often conflict those public thing of the and those the victim .... One prosecuting perform is certain. The officer cannot — discharge public this function he cannot his — obligation personal if are his interests involved. representation gives his at And once [victim] personal him interest the matter that disables performance proper him from official In re duty.” Ridgely, 464, 527, 48 Del. A. 106 2d (1954). 530-31 obligations

When faced with a situation which the official prosecutor private conflicted, interests of a the other nation, exceptions, courts of this with few have taken positions See, e.g., consistent with what we have said here. (4th 1967); Ganger Peyton, People 379 F. 2d 709 v. Cir. v. _, 174, (1967) (per curiam); 162 Colo. 427 P. 2d 330 v__, People 440, Ass’n 90 Colo. 9 ex rel. Colorado Bar (1932); Guardianship 26 Angell, P. 2d 611 In re Ill.App.2d 239, 167 (1960); Jones, 437, 268 711 v. N.E.2d State Mo. 306 S. 83, (1924); Truder, 69, W. In re 85-86 37 N. 17 P. 2d 951 M. (1932);People Krstovich, 90, v. 72 Misc. 2d 338 N.Y.S.2d 132 (Greene County 1972); Williams, 386, Ct. In re 174 Okla. 50 (1935); 197, P. 2d 729 Hall v. 24 217 Okla. Crim. P. 229 (1923); Basham, 250, 170 v. S. (1969); State 84 D. N.W.2d 238 Eno, 65, 168 v. 41 S. D. N. 764 (1918); W. Callahan v. Hosford Jones, 241, (1939). Wash. P. 200 93 2d 326 But see 38, v. Dunlap, Super. Commonwealth 233 Pa. 335 A. 2d 364 (1975); Goodwin, v. 403, 158 (1967). State S. 250 C. 195 S.E.2d disapproved See in addition cases in which courts have of an attorney, individual, who sub representing after an sequently joined prosecuted his the state’s staff and charges subject former client which were related employment. Latigue, State 521, matter of the v. 108 Ariz. (1972);People Gerold, 448, 107 502 v. P. 2d 1340 Ill. 265 N. E. 165, 175-78(1914); 383, 524 State Chambers, v. 86 N. M. P. 2d (Ct. denied, App.), cert. 86 N. 524 P. M. 2d 988 (1974);Steeley State, v. 821, 822-24 252, 187 Okla. Crim. P. (1920).

Furthermore, although explicitly that a violation state by prosecuting a Responsibility of Professional the Code of necessarily require reversal of the attorney will alone involved, we mention of the make conviction criminal the that fact attorney, obligations professional of an

“The ethical bar, are not long a member of the as he remains as pursue his livelihood a decision affected world, law, entering business practicing the servant, embarking any upon a becoming public or lawyer a to become If elects other endeavor. mérchantry man, brings he to his business honesty, requirements uprightness, of professional lawyer dealing. Equally, a who enters and fair legal of leave behind the canons public life does not Agnew, v. 271Md. Maryland St. Bar Ass’n ethics.”9 543, 550, 318 (1974). 811 A. 2d (a) 1.2 relevant that of The

Additionally, we think it § Justice, For Project on Standards Criminal A.B.A. (Approved Relating Prosecution Function To The Standards “A 1971) prosecutor that should Draft, cogently declares reality of a of interest with appearance conflict avoid commentary to that to his duties.” The respect official that importance is of the utmost that “It section adds in circumstances participation in a case prosecutor avoid over shadow implication partiality of cast where ample support, sum, of integrity In there of his office.” regard Code is directed to Canons 7 and 9 of the of 9. In this attention Responsibility as well as to the Ethical Considerations and Professional Disciplinary canons, particularly to DR 7-105 Rules related to those present, lawyer participate (A), shall not which reads: “A presenting^ advantage charges solely present in a civil to obtain criminal an threaten to matter.” recognize Although the A.B.A. “standards are intended as action, disciplinary guides not as criteria for the determine the lawyers for the conduct and as the basis for judicial prosecutorial misconduct to evaluation nevertheless, ...,” we, validity find them to of a conviction Project See The On Standards For be a relevant consideration. Criminal A.B.A. Justice, Relating (e) 1.1 To Prosecution Function § Standards Draft, 1971). (Approved varieties, principle several for the lawof we have announced opinion. in this

Having is, again determined what the standard we turn record is before at Upon us time. examination, we find a record which bristles with allegations specific prosecutorial unresolved nonfrivolous Although conflicts of interest. allegations, made, these compel inquiry, investigation should and such is all the more required since at one attempted time disqualify participating himself from prosecution, judge factually determine, trial did not see Beshore v. Town Air, Bel 237 Md. (1965), quoting 206 A. 2d 678 Montgomery County Walker, v. 574, 580, 180 228 Md. A. 2d (1962), whether there were such conflicts. Because the validity petitioner’s conviction, of including the against him, information fact, filed turns on question this of by judge must be resolved the trial and not Court, we will remand this to case the Circuit for Court County proceedings. for Caroline further way What we said allegiance have here no alters our to principle that when a state’s determines that public requires prosecution, interest duty it is his to zealously crime; guilty seek to convict those of however, as attempted plain opinion, we have to in this make his decision just prosecute, to employs procure like the methods he conviction, must inbe accord with the impartial fair and justice, administration contaminating untainted influence.

Judgment Special the Court Appeals reversed and case court, remanded that direction that it remand the case to the Circuit Court for County Caroline further proceedings in accord with this opinion.

Costs in this Court well as in Special Appeals Court abide the result. concurring: Smith, J., upon a defect isit based result insofar as in the

I concur my any expression It is belief accusatory process. day. on another case left to another beyond be that should notes held to the defendant A. July August of 1973. The matter Sinclair was not consummated and thereafter October of Attorney Cooper presentment State’s made Jury County of Kent and issued Grand subject informations which are the matter of actions; Jury present criminal and the Grand returned indictments. (6) Attorney Cooper in That State’s October

Case Details

Case Name: Sinclair v. State

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Maryland

Date Published: Sep 14, 1976

Citation: 363 A.2d 468

Docket Number: [No. 83, September Term, 1975.]

Court Abbreviation: Md.