The prosecution said a defense attorney has a potential conflict of interest in a homicide case before DC Superior Court Judge Rainey Brandt during a Nov. 21 hearing.
Tyrone Spencer, 44, is charged with first-degree murder while armed for his alleged involvement in the fatal shooting of 36-year-old Francois Adkins, which occurred on Sept. 1 on the 2300 block of 14th Street, NE.
According to court documents, Adkins died from four gunshot wounds.
During the Nov. 21 hearing, Judge Brandt raised concerns about the motions filed by both the prosecution and the defense about defense attorney Kevin O’Sullivan having’ ‘s a potential conflict of interest, which would force him to transfer the case to another attorney.
The prosecution argued that the Public Defender Service (PDS), who O’Sullivan works for, has represented Adkins in a past misdemeanor case, in which he was charged with carrying a pistol without a license. They explained that if the homicide case leads the defense to cross examine witnesses about Adkins’ past violent history, they could have prior knowledge from working with Adkins in the past.
Defense attorney Claire Roth represented PDS’ interests in the matter. She argued that the conflict of interest only pertains to conversations about the charges Adkins was convicted of, which in this case was a misdemeanor, and should not be considered a significant violent crime to warrant a conflict.
Roth also argued that the attorney that represented Adkins no longer works at PDS. She explained that there is no evidence that Adkins’ attorney had conversations with co-workers about the case and that Judge Brandt should not speculate that these conversations happened. Instead, the court should focus on the fact that conversations about Adkins’ past could not happen now, according to Roth.
Judge Brandt ordered both parties to write an additional set of motions on this issue and insisted that they cite more decisions from prior cases to make their arguments.
“I don’t think this is as cut and dry as both sides are making it,” Brandt said. “This issue gives the court heartburn. We need more information to decide the ultimate question. Flesh out this tension for me.”
Judge Brandt agreed with the prosecution that if self-defense is used as an argument, there might be a conflict that arises from having unfair knowledge of his potential violent history.
“Mr. Spencer deserves an attorney who doesn’t have to hold back on cross if they have to cross on violent history,” Brandt said.
Parties are slated to reconvene on Dec. 22.
