(Download) "State Tennessee v. Jesse Jones" by Supreme Court of Tennessee # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: State Tennessee v. Jesse Jones
- Author : Supreme Court of Tennessee
- Release Date : January 16, 1987
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 71 KB
Description
WM. H. D. FONES, Justice The issue in this case is whether an attorney may refuse to accept a court ordered appointment as counsel for an indigent criminal on the ground that such representation would violate an ethics opinion issued by the Board of Professional Responsibility. 1 The ethics opinion declared unequivocally that county attorneys cannot represent criminal defendants prosecuted by the county officers. The county attorney was Larry Banks' law partner, and the ethics opinion expressly declared that partners and associates of the county attorney were disqualified. The transcript of the entire proceeding in the trial court consists of a three page colloquy between the trial Judge and Banks. 2 Defendant Jones was indicted on 3 December 1984 for the offense of disorderly conduct and the colloquy took place on 12 December 1984. It is clear that at some date after 3 December and prior to the hearing on 12 December the trial Judge had informed Banks that he would be appointed to represent defendant Jones. Banks' opening remarks reflect that he had been appointed, had looked over the file and had discussed it with the Attorney General. In open court Banks informed the trial Judge that a deputy sheriff was listed on the indictment as a witness, that he was not sure whether the deputy would be a material witness or a technical witness, but that his understanding of the ethics opinion issued by the Board of Professional Responsibility was that he was precluded from representing Jones because his law partner was the county attorney. He therefore informed the court that he would have to decline the appointment. The trial court asked him if he had determined whether the deputy sheriff was anything more than a technical witness and informed Banks that the court understood that the only thing the deputy did was serve a warrant. Banks responded that that might be correct but that he understood the ethics opinion required that he decline if there is even the appearance of a conflict. Banks gave an affirmative answer to the trial Judge's question of whether he could give his best in representing defendant Jones but declined to obey the trial Judge's direct order to represent defendant Jones.