## Facts

- Joseph Williams was convicted of first-degree murder in Delaware and sentenced to death after the jury recommended death by a 10–2 vote and the trial judge imposed the death penalty.
- Bernard J. O’Donnell, an attorney with the Office of the Public Defender, was appointed to represent Williams on direct appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court.
- At the same time, O’Donnell represented a different capital defendant in another direct appeal in which the trial judge imposed the death penalty even though the jury voted 2–10 against recommending death.
- In that other appeal, O’Donnell argued that the trial judge committed error by failing to give the jury’s 2–10 anti-death recommendation “great weight.”
- In Williams’s case, O’Donnell identified a potential appellate argument that the trial judge misread the relevant death-penalty sentencing framework by treating the jury’s 10–2 pro-death recommendation as entitled to “great weight,” which would require O’Donnell to argue the opposite interpretation of the same “great weight” concept.
- O’Donnell moved to withdraw from representing Williams on appeal and requested appointment of substitute counsel, explaining that presenting opposite positions on the same legal question in two death-penalty appeals could affect his loyalty to each client, his credibility before the court, and the risk of creating precedent harmful to one client while helping the other.
- The State agreed that O’Donnell’s dual representation created a conflict and did not oppose withdrawal and substitution of counsel.
- The Delaware Supreme Court considered the motion in advance of merits briefing on Williams’s direct appeal, focusing solely on whether the conflict required disqualification and replacement of counsel.

## Issues

1. Whether appellate counsel has a disqualifying conflict of interest when he simultaneously represents two capital defendants on direct appeal and must argue directly inconsistent interpretations of the same death-sentencing “great weight” requirement.
2. Whether, given that conflict, the Delaware Supreme Court should permit counsel to withdraw and require appointment of conflict-free substitute counsel for the capital appellant.

## Decision

- The Delaware Supreme Court concluded that O’Donnell’s simultaneous representation of Williams and the other capital appellant created an actual conflict of interest because the appeals called for directly contradictory arguments on the same statutory sentencing question.
- The court determined that the conflict threatened Williams’s right to effective, conflict-free representation on direct appeal in a capital case.
- The court granted O’Donnell’s motion to withdraw and directed that substitute appellate counsel be appointed for Williams.

## Legal Principles

- A criminal defendant is entitled to effective assistance of counsel, which includes representation free of conflicting interests.
- A conflict exists when counsel’s responsibilities to one current client materially limit counsel’s ability to advocate for another current client, including when counsel must argue directly inconsistent positions in separate matters.
- Conflicts are especially serious where counsel’s choices about legal theory, issue selection, and framing of statutory interpretation may be affected by duties owed to another client.
- In a death-penalty direct appeal, courts take special care to ensure reliable, fair proceedings, and will act to prevent representation that could later generate substantial conflict-based claims.
- When a conflict is identified at the outset of a capital appeal—and particularly where both defense counsel and the State agree the conflict is disqualifying—the appropriate remedy is withdrawal and appointment of new counsel so the appeal can proceed without divided loyalties.

## Conclusion

In Williams v. State of Delaware, the Delaware Supreme Court held that a public defender could not continue as appellate counsel for a capital defendant where the attorney’s concurrent representation of another death-sentenced client required directly inconsistent “great weight” arguments about jury sentencing votes; the court granted withdrawal and ordered appointment of substitute, conflict-free counsel for Williams’s direct appeal.


Williams v. State of Delaware, 805 A.2d 880 (2002)