Minnesota: Dual Representation

In Commonwealth v. Brown, 972 A.2d 529 (Minn. 2009), the court reversed and remanded the appeal of defendant Brown for a petition on post conviction relief based on claim of ineffective assistance of counsel due to conflict of interest when the trial court denied it.

Brown was not aware his attorney also represented the codefendant Bryant. Brown was told Bryant will testify against him and he was convinced to plead guilty for all counts of robbery, criminal conspiracy, and delivery of controlled substance. Brown was sentence to a ten to twenty year incarceration. The standard for an attorney’s ethical obligation is stated in the ABA Code under section 5-16 that the attorney must reveal and explain to each client the pros and cons of the same legal counsel representation.

However, the burden of proof lies in the party seeking the claim. The party does not have to show or prove actual harm but just the “possibility of harm” due to the dual representation. In this particular case, Brown received a lesser sentence than Bryant. The Court does not have the actual evidence to dispute that. Therefore, the court reversed the decision for Brown’s appeal and is remanding a hearing for Brown. The hearing is to determine whether the representation was ineffective which would “require the withdrawal of Brown’s plea.”