## Facts

- Salimah Cole, an indigent defendant, was indicted on 16 felony counts, including first-degree murder, armed robbery with a firearm, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated arson, and possession of a stolen motor vehicle, arising from a shooting, robbery, and kidnappings on September 30, 2015.
- Multiple alleged codefendants were charged in connection with the same criminal episode.
- The circuit court appointed the Cook County public defender to represent Cole.
- Amy P. Campanelli, the Cook County Public Defender, refused the appointment, asserting an office-wide conflict of interest based on the presence of multiple codefendants and arguing her office should be treated as a single “law firm” for imputed-conflict purposes.
- Campanelli sought “friendly contempt” to obtain appellate review of the appointment and the asserted categorical conflict rule.
- The circuit court found Campanelli in direct civil contempt and imposed a $250-per-day fine, coercive and purgeable upon compliance.
- The fine was stayed pending appeal, and the Illinois Supreme Court took the case on direct review.

## Issues

1. Whether a public defender office must be treated as a single “law firm” such that a conflict affecting one assistant public defender is automatically imputed to the entire office in multi-defendant prosecutions.
2. Whether the trial court erred in appointing the public defender absent a case-specific conflict and in holding the public defender in direct civil contempt for refusing the appointment.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court.
- The court rejected a categorical rule that the public defender’s office is automatically conflicted from representing more than one defendant in a multi-defendant case.
- The court held conflicts must be evaluated case by case, and a generalized structural or policy-based claim of conflict was insufficient to refuse appointment.
- The court upheld the use of direct civil contempt and a coercive, purgeable per-diem fine to enforce compliance with the appointment order.

## Legal Principles

- A public defender office is not categorically treated as a private law firm for automatic imputation of conflicts across the entire office in every multi-defendant prosecution.
- Conflict-of-interest determinations for appointed counsel require a case-specific showing of an actual conflict or a serious potential conflict; generalized assertions based on office structure do not suffice.
- Trial courts have authority to appoint the public defender to represent indigent defendants and to require acceptance of the appointment absent a legally cognizable conflict.
- Direct civil contempt may be used to compel compliance with a lawful appointment order when the refusal occurs in the court’s presence, and coercive sanctions are permissible if they are purgeable.

## Conclusion

The court held that public defender conflicts in multi-defendant prosecutions are not presumed office-wide and must be assessed based on the particular facts, and it affirmed the trial court’s coercive civil contempt sanction against the public defender for refusing a lawful appointment without a case-specific conflict.


People v. Cole, 104 N.E.3d 325 (Ill. 2017)