## Facts

- Jeremy White was indicted in Shelby County, Tennessee, for attempt to commit first degree murder and other especially aggravated felonies arising from an October 1999 incident.
- White retained attorney Mark S. McDaniel, who represented him through early stages of the case, including preliminary proceedings and discovery.
- During the representation, McDaniel simultaneously served as a part-time prosecutor for the Town of Collierville and was appointed as an assistant district attorney in Shelby County.
- In his prosecutorial roles, McDaniel had authority to prosecute municipal violations and, within municipal limits, state-law criminal violations under concurrent jurisdiction.
- After an advisory opinion from the Board of Professional Responsibility concluded that a lawyer may not ethically act as both prosecutor and criminal defense counsel in the same geographic area, the State moved to disqualify McDaniel.
- White testified he understood the potential conflict and wished to waive it and keep McDaniel as counsel.

## Issues

1. Whether counsel’s simultaneous service as a part-time prosecutor and criminal defense attorney in the same county created an actual conflict of interest.
2. Whether the conflict required disqualification despite the defendant’s willingness to waive it.
3. Whether disqualification violated the defendant’s constitutional right to counsel of choice.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the disqualification order.
- The Court held that counsel’s dual roles as prosecutor and defense counsel in the same jurisdiction created an actual conflict of interest.
- The Court held the conflict was not subject to unilateral waiver by the defendant because it implicated public interests tied to prosecutorial duties.
- The Court concluded the trial court acted within its discretion in removing counsel to protect the integrity and fairness of the proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer’s simultaneous service as a criminal prosecutor and criminal defense counsel in the same jurisdiction constitutes an actual conflict of interest because the duties to the public and to an individual defendant are directly incompatible.
- A defendant’s Sixth Amendment interest in counsel of choice is not absolute and may yield to a court’s duty to ensure ethical, conflict-free representation and to protect the integrity of the judicial process.
- Conflicts arising from prosecutorial responsibilities implicate public interests and therefore cannot be waived solely by a defendant who wishes to proceed with conflicted counsel.
- Trial courts have discretion to disqualify counsel when an actual conflict threatens the fairness or perceived fairness of criminal proceedings.

## Conclusion

The court held that an attorney who simultaneously serves as a prosecutor in the same jurisdiction may not represent a criminal defendant there because the conflict is actual and nonwaivable; disqualification does not violate the defendant’s right to counsel of choice when necessary to preserve fair and ethical proceedings.


State v. White, 114 S.W.3d 469 (Tenn. 2003)