Prosecution Says Defense Lawyer in a Homicide Case Has a Conflict of Interest

By Emily Reed , Sonia Vazquez - July 3, 2024
Court | Daily Stories | Homicides | Shooting | Suspects | Victims |

In response to discovery of evidence motions made by the defense in a homicide case, the prosecution argued before DC Superior Court Judge Robert Okun during a July 2 hearing that the defense attorney had a conflict of interest with a prosecution witness.

Tyree Irving, 27, is charged with first-degree murder, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, unlawful possession of a firearm, and two counts of obstruction of justice for his alleged involvement in the homicide of 22-year-old Davane Williams. The incident occurred on Jan. 15, 2019, on the 1200 block of North Capitol Street, NW. 

According to court documents, an individual was identified by a witness on the scene as Irving. The witness told police the suspect approached Williams and an unknown individual. The suspect allegedly  shook hands with the unnamed individual before moving towards Williams, brandishing a handgun, and shooting him multiple times. Williams was found on the scene with numerous gunshot wounds and pronounced dead.

Prior to the July 2 hearing, a Public Defender Services (PDS) attorney that represents Irving, Madalyn Harvey, filed a motion requesting the prosecution share information about a witness that they intend to call during trial.

The prosecution explained that the witness is currently held in prison after being convicted of an unrelated homicide.

The prosecution objected to the motion, stating that the DC Bar prohibited Harvey from representing Irving due to a conflict of interest because Harvey and the witness’ attorney worked at PDS at the same time. 

Sharing information about the witness would unfairly advantage the defense because Harvey would have access to additional files about the witness through the PDS office, argued prosecutors.

Claire Roth, PDS’ Special Counsel to the Director – Ethical Conflicts and CJA Panel, stated that the rule allows Harvey to continue her representations with Irving’s informed consent.

“Mr. Irving has a constitutional right to counsel of choice,” she argued.

The prosecution responded that even if Irving gave consent, it would still unfairly compromise the credibility of the witness in that the defense would “probe and probe and probe” at the witness whose “credibility is central to this case.”

Irving was placed under oath and agreed that he wanted Harvey to continue representing him. He told Judge Okun he was aware that PDS had represented the witness and his current PDS attorneys could not access the witness’ privileged information during cross-examination.

In a May 24 hearing, Harvey characterized the witness as a “cooperator” who is out to “help himself.”  Further, she claimed he has a bias and is desperate to curry favor.  

Judge Okun did not make an official ruling on the motion and stated he would issue a written order within the next week.

Parties are slated to return on July 19.