This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was charged with multiple offenses, including criminal sexual penetration, criminal sexual contact of a minor, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and bribery of a witness. After a mistrial due to a hung jury, the Defendant was indicted for solicitation to commit first-degree murder, targeting one of the attorneys who prosecuted his original trial. The Defendant later pleaded guilty to related charges of solicitation to commit aggravated battery. The district court disqualified the entire Second Judicial District Attorney’s Office from retrying the Defendant, citing an appearance of impropriety due to the alleged threats (paras 1, 3, 5, 7-8).
Procedural History
- District Court, January 13, 2006: The district court disqualified the entire Second Judicial District Attorney’s Office from prosecuting the Defendant, citing an appearance of impropriety and bias due to the Defendant’s alleged solicitation to harm one of the prosecutors (paras 1, 7-8).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (State): Argued that the Defendant failed to demonstrate a conflict of interest or bias warranting disqualification of the prosecuting attorneys. The State contended that the Defendant’s post-trial conduct should not form the basis for disqualification and that the district court erred in disqualifying the entire District Attorney’s Office (para 2, 12).
- Appellee (Defendant): Asserted that the prosecuting attorneys had disqualifying personal interests due to the Defendant’s alleged solicitation to harm one of them. The Defendant argued that the entire District Attorney’s Office was tainted by an appearance of impropriety and that no adequate screening mechanisms were in place to mitigate this (paras 11-12).
Legal Issues
- Whether the prosecuting attorneys had a disqualifying conflict of interest or bias due to the Defendant’s alleged solicitation to harm one of them.
- Whether the district court erred in disqualifying the entire Second Judicial District Attorney’s Office from prosecuting the Defendant.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order disqualifying the entire Second Judicial District Attorney’s Office and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 29).
Reasons
Per Fry J. (Pickard J. concurring):
The Court held that neither of the prosecuting attorneys had a disqualifying conflict of interest or bias. The Defendant’s alleged solicitation to harm one of the prosecutors did not create a personal interest or bias sufficient to impair their professional judgment. The Court emphasized that a defendant cannot disqualify a prosecutor or an entire office through threats or misconduct. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence that the entire District Attorney’s Office was tainted by an appearance of impropriety, as the alleged threats were not directly related to the underlying charges being prosecuted. The Court concluded that the district court erred in disqualifying the entire office without sufficient justification (paras 25-28).
Dissenting Opinion by Kennedy J.:
Kennedy J. dissented, arguing that the district court’s decision to disqualify the prosecutors and the entire office was a proper exercise of discretion. The dissent emphasized the personal involvement of the prosecutors with the Defendant’s solicitation case and the broader concerns within the District Attorney’s Office about the Defendant’s threats. Kennedy J. contended that the district court’s findings were supported by sufficient evidence and that the appearance of impropriety justified the disqualification of the entire office (paras 31-40).