14 N.Y.3d 794 (2010)

A defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest arising from a prior relationship between the defense attorney and a prosecution witness must demonstrate that the conflict actually affected the conduct of the defense.

Summary

Konstantinides was convicted of attempted murder for shooting his uncle. He appealed, arguing that the trial court failed to adequately inquire into a potential conflict of interest arising from his attorney’s prior contact with the victim, who was the prosecution’s main witness. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that even if a potential conflict existed, the defendant failed to show that the conflict actually influenced his attorney’s representation. The court emphasized that the defense was vigorous and the jury was instructed to disregard the prior relationship.

Facts

The defendant, Konstantinides, was convicted of shooting his uncle. During the trial, the prosecutor revealed that the victim (the uncle) had previously been employed by the defendant’s attorney as a bodyguard. The defense attorney acknowledged a brief prior association, stating the victim was part of a group who met at his office and accompanied him to court once. The defendant was aware of this prior association.

Procedural History

Following his conviction for attempted murder in the second degree, the defendant appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the trial court erred by failing to conduct a sufficient inquiry into a potential conflict of interest arising from the defense attorney’s prior contact with the victim, and whether this potential conflict warranted reversal of the conviction.

Holding

No, because even assuming the prior acquaintance rose to a level implicating conflict of interest concerns, the defendant failed to demonstrate that the conduct of his defense was actually affected by the operation of the conflict of interest.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals relied on precedent requiring a defendant to show that the alleged conflict of interest actually affected the conduct of the defense. The court found that the defense attorney mounted a vigorous defense, challenging the victim’s credibility and character, exploring the victim’s criminal record, and pursuing a justification defense based on the victim’s conduct. The court also noted that the trial court instructed the jury to disregard any evidence of the prior relationship, which the jury was presumed to have followed.

The Court stated:

“Defendant has not demonstrated that his attorney’s representation was influenced or affected by any prior relationship with the victim. Indeed, review of the trial transcript reveals that defendant’s counsel mounted a vigorous defense, pursuing a theory of justification based on the victim’s conduct during the incident and his alleged history of terrorizing defendant and his family.”

Even though the court affirmed the conviction, it cautioned trial courts to conduct a sufficient inquiry when evidence of a prior relationship between a defense attorney and a prosecution witness surfaces. The court also emphasized the responsibility of all parties to promptly disclose such relationships to the court.