Asked in Criminal Law for Idaho

Q: Does a conflict of interest exist if a prosecutor is related to the "victims" in a criminal case.

The prosecutor Anson Call in Power County Idaho was related to the "victims" of a burglary case. He was also related to a jury member who became the foreman. Niether relationship was disclosed before or during trial.

Related Topics:
1 Lawyer Answer
Kevin M Rogers
Kevin M Rogers
  • Criminal Law Lawyer
  • Boise, ID
  • Licensed in Idaho

A: Conflict of Interest is a serious problem in small counties. The Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct are often consulted by these prosecutors prior to initiating prosecutions, but sometimes it is "overlooked" due to practical considerations, such as money or lack of money to conflict the case to the neighboring county prosecutor. Idaho Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7, specifically says such a family interest, is a conflict of interest:



(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of

interest exists if:

(1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or

(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by the personal interests of the lawyer, including family and domestic relationships.

However, as I said earlier, such conflicts are often "over-looked," but only under the following circumstances:

(b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if:

(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;

(2) the representation is not prohibited by law;

(3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; and,

(4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

So, in summary, the prosecutor should have done all 4 of the above:

1. Conduct a self, investigation, to see if he believes he can represent the State of Idaho zealously, when he is related to the victims of a crime he is prosecuting. I don't personally believe his relationship to the victims of a crime, makes him any less able to prosecute zealously, than if the victims had been unknown to him, so on this score I give him a "pass;"

2. The representation is NOT prohibited by any law that I am familiar with;

3. This is not a situation where the victims are represented by other lawyers and the prosecutor's client, who is the State of Idaho, is represented by a different lawyer, the PA is the same lawyer in both situations;

4. I don't believe he has a conflict of interest, as to the victims of a crime he is prosecuting, so he would not be required to get their signed, waiver of his conflict.

His conflict with the juryman who became Foreman, is MUCH more problematic to me. This fact SHOULD HAVE been brought out in Voir Dire by the Court. This makes his prosecution very suspect and subject to a Motion to Dismiss, or a Post-Conviction motion.

Justia Ask a Lawyer is a forum for consumers to get answers to basic legal questions. Any information sent through Justia Ask a Lawyer is not secure and is done so on a non-confidential basis only.

The use of this website to ask questions or receive answers does not create an attorney–client relationship between you and Justia, or between you and any attorney who receives your information or responds to your questions, nor is it intended to create such a relationship. Additionally, no responses on this forum constitute legal advice, which must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. You should not act upon information provided in Justia Ask a Lawyer without seeking professional counsel from an attorney admitted or authorized to practice in your jurisdiction. Justia assumes no responsibility to any person who relies on information contained on or received through this site and disclaims all liability in respect to such information.

Justia cannot guarantee that the information on this website (including any legal information provided by an attorney through this service) is accurate, complete, or up-to-date. While we intend to make every attempt to keep the information on this site current, the owners of and contributors to this site make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to from this site.