ÿWPCô …UNV %¤ 0(ª4Òæõ 0Jý 0TG 0^› 0hù 0ra 0|Ó 0†O 0Õ 1ue U,Ú 0d U,j U>– U6Ô B) DC3 AMv U*à =í v~* B¨vÓÅ D3˜ 0@Ë AO ÆZ 0D  0Dd D/¨ B×(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡o„pxÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÔ3|x? 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial 3Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌMarch€22,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@ dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÔ€ÔòòÑ7€vPXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÙ€€ÙßL€!# ;+'h|` ç `€€Lßà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóà@ àòòÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEóóÌÌà@ àFEBRUARY€1995€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àC.C.A.#€01C01„9408„CC„00278Ì€€Ìà àà àAPPELLEE,à àà à*à àMONTGOMERY€COUNTY€ÌÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€Robert€W.€Wedemeyer,€JudgeÌÌJOE€T.€BAKER,à àà à€€€€à à*à à(Felony€Murder)€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€Ìà àà àAPPELLANT.à à*ÌÌÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Appellant:óóà àà àà à€€òòFor€the€Appellee:óóÌÌWade€Boboà àà à€€€€€à àà à€€Charles€W.€BursonÌAttorneyà àà àà àà àà à€€Attorney€General€and€ReporterÌ129€South€Third€Street€€€€€€€€€€450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌClarksville,€TN€€37040à àà à€€Nashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ì€Ìand€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Michael€E.€MooreÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Solicitor€GeneralÌJames€A.€SimmonsÌAttorneyà àà àà àà àà à€€andÌ1707€Division€StreetÌSuite€100à àà àà àà àà à€€Michael€W.€CatalanoÌNashville,€TN€€37203à àà à€€Associate€Solicitor€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€500€Charlotte€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€Nashville,€TN€€37243Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€Steve€Garrett€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÏAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€204€Franklin€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€Suite€200Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€Clarksville,€TN€€37041€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÇÓÓ€à@ àòòò òOPINIONÌó óóóà àà àThe€defendant,€Joe€T.€Baker,€appeals€of€right€from€hisÏconviction€for€felony€murder.€€The€state€had€unsuccessfullyÏsought€the€death€penalty.€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€lifeÏsentence.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€presents€the€following€issues€for€ourÏreview:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€byÏrefusing€to€suppress€statements€obtainedÏfrom€the€defendant€after€the€appointment€ofÏcounsel;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€byÏrefusing€to€disqualify€the€districtÏattorney€general's€office€from€theÏprosecution;€andÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€whether€any€violation€of€the€Code€ofÏProfessional€Responsibility€would€warrant€aÏnew€trial.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àWe€affirm€the€conviction.ÌÌà àà àOn€January€8,€1989,€the€defendant,€Roosevelt€Bigbee€Ï(defendant's€brother„in„law),€and€Joel€Hoosier€robbed€Beach'sÏMarket€and€shot€and€killed€the€victim,€Vada€Langston,€the€clerkÏon€duty.€€Initially,€the€defendant€denied€any€involvement€andÍtold€Clarksville€police€that€Hoosier€was€responsible€for€theÏcrime.€€The€defendant€claimed€that€Hoosier€had€given€him€theÏmurder€weapon€which€he€then€turned€over€to€the€authorities.€€TheÏdefendant€agreed€to€"wear€a€wire"€and€brought€police€officers€aÏtape€recording€which€purportedly€contained€Hoosier's€confession.€ÏThe€recording€was€actually€a€fake€that€the€defendant€had€madeÏwith€the€help€of€Bigbee.€€Afterwards,€police€charged€HoosierÏwith€the€robbery€and€€murder.€€ÌÌà àà àJust€before€Hoosier's€preliminary€hearing,€BigbeeÏadmitted€to€Detective€J.€Runyon€and€Steve€Garrett,€an€assistantÏdistrict€attorney,€that€he€had€been€involved€in€the€crime.€€HeÏclaimed€that€he€had€helped€Hoosier€plan€the€robbery€but€decidedÏnot€to€participate€when€Hoosier€declared€that€he€would€kill€theÏclerk.€€The€assistant€district€attorney€suspected€that€theÏdefendant€and€Bigbee€"weren't€telling€all€that€they€knew"€andÏasked€officers€to€further€investigate.€€Later,€Detective€RunyonÏinterviewed€Bigbee,€but€not€the€defendant.€€Meanwhile,€theÏassistant€district€attorney€continued€to€monitor€the€progress€ofÏthe€police€investigation.ÌÌà àà àA€few€days€later,€the€defendant,€claiming€that€he€hadÍsome€important€information,€called€Detective€Charles€Denton€andÏasked€that€he€come€to€his€apartment.€€In€the€ensuing€meeting,Ïthe€defendant€told€Detective€Denton€and€Detective€Runyon€thatÏBigbee€"might"€have€been€fully€involved€in€the€robbery€andÏmurder.€€The€defendant€claimed€that€he€felt€threatened€by€BigbeeÏand€his€brother,€who€had€called€him€a€snitch.€€Later€thatÏevening,€the€defendant€and€Bigbee€returned€to€the€police€stationÏfor€additional€questioning.€€The€defendant€admitted€that€theÏtape€he€had€given€the€police€was€a€fake.€€He€claimed€thatÏBigbee,€rather€than€Hoosier,€had€given€him€the€murder€weapon.€ÏThe€police€arrested€Bigbee€and€confronted€him€with€theÏdefendant's€accusation.€€Bigbee€responded€that€the€defendantÏ"wasn't€the€man€[police]€thought€and€that€[Bigbee]€wasn't€goingÏdown€alone."€€€When€Detective€Denton€and€Detective€RunyonÏinformed€the€district€attorney€general€of€the€remark,€theÏdefendant€was€placed€under€arrest.€€€€ÌÌà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€Garrett€did€not€directlyÏparticipate€in€the€interrogation€but€did€overhear€some€of€theÏanswers€given€by€Bigbee€and€the€defendant.€€Also,€he€submittedÏseveral€written€questions€to€the€investigating€officers€for€theÏdefendant€to€answer.€€Later€the€officers€provided€him€with€theÍdefendant's€replies.€€€ÌÌà àà àA€day€after€his€arrest,€the€defendant€contactedÏDetective€Runyon,€telling€him€he€had€more€information€and€askingÏthat€he€visit.€€Detective€Runyon€and€Detective€Denton€then€tookÏthe€defendant€out€of€jail€and€returned€him€to€the€policeÏstation.€€At€that€point,€the€defendant€claimed€that€he€hadÏoriginally€planned€to€participate€in€the€robbery€but,€uponÏlearning€that€Hoosier€and€Bigbee€planned€to€kill€the€clerk,€toldÏthem€he€wanted€no€part€of€it€and€got€out€of€the€car.€€TheÏdefendant€also€informed€the€police€that€he€had€knowledge€ofÏseveral€other€crimes,€hoping€that€his€additional€"cooperation"Ïmight€warrant€some€leniency.€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àShortly€thereafter,€the€defendant€was€appointedÏdefense€counsel,€who€advised€him€to€make€no€further€statements.€ÏNevertheless,€the€defendant€made€three€or€four€collect€calls€toÏthe€district€attorney's€office,€offering€to€provide€additionalÏinformation€in€exchange€for€"a€deal."€€On€each€occasion,€theÏassistant€district€attorney€advised€the€defendant€to€contact€hisÏcounsel.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€made€a€series€of€telephone€calls€toÏDetective€Denton€and€Detective€Runyon€seeking€furtherÏdiscussions.€€The€officers€then€conferred€with€AssistantÏDistrict€Attorney€Garrett€about€the€propriety€of€taking€anyÏfurther€statements€absent€the€presence€of€defense€counsel.€ÏAfter€researching€the€issue,€the€assistant€district€attorneyÏadvised€that€by€initiating€the€contact,€the€defendant€hadÏprobably€made€a€valid€waiver€of€the€right€to€counsel,€unlessÏdefense€counsel€had€left€specific€instructions€not€to€talk€toÏthe€defendant.€€Apparently,€defense€counsel€had€not€done€so.ÌÌà àà àSeveral€days€later,€the€defendant€sent€DetectiveÏDenton€and€Detective€Runyon€a€letter€acknowledging€his€desire€toÏmake€a€statement€despite€the€fact€that€he€had€counsel.€€He€thenÏadmitted€that€he€had€actually€been€inside€the€store€during€theÏrobbery€but€was€unaware€that€Hoosier€and€Bigbee€had€planned€toÏrob€the€store€or€kill€the€clerk.€€The€defendant€identifiedÏBigbee€as€the€"trigger€man."€€Upon€receiving€this€information,ÏDetective€Denton€and€Detective€Runyon€decided€to€again€talk€toÏthe€defendant€in€person.€€The€defendant€confirmed€the€accuracyÏof€the€content€of€the€letter.ÌÌà àà àDuring€the€trial€proceedings,€Assistant€DistrictÏAttorney€Garrett€acknowledged€that€he€did€not€inform€defenseÏcounsel€of€this€last€interview.€€He€did,€however,€state€that€heÏhad€previously€told€defense€counsel€that€his€client€"was€callingÏeverybody€...€trying€to€talk."€€Defense€counsel€recalled€theÏconversation€with€the€assistant€district€attorney€and€concededÏthat€he€had€not€left€specific€instructions€that€there€be€noÏdiscussions€with€the€defendant€outside€of€his€presence.€€HeÏexplained€that€he€had€assumed€that€he€would€be€notified€of€anyÏpossible€meetings€with€the€defendant€in€accordance€with€theÏcustomary€practice€of€the€district€attorney€general's€office.€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€telephoned€Montgomery€CountyÏDistrict€Attorney€General€Patrick€H.€McCutchen€asking€that€heÏcome€to€the€jail.€€Identifying€himself€as€"Mr.€Miller,"€theÏdefendant€claimed€to€have€information€on€a€Robertson€CountyÏdouble€murder,€which€he€wanted€to€give€in€exchange€for€a€lowerÏbail.€€District€Attorney€McCutchen€suspected€that€the€defendantÏhad€called€and,€upon€arriving€at€the€jail,€confirmed€hisÏsuspicions.€€The€defendant€immediately€asked€what€kind€of€"deal"Ïhe€could€get€in€exchange€for€his€information.€€The€districtÏattorney€refused€to€offer€any€deal€until€the€defendant€told€whatÍhe€knew.€€The€defendant€declined.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€a€later€statement,€the€defendant€claimed€thatÏChristopher€Walker,€a€member€of€the€Marine€Corps,€had€alsoÏparticipated€in€this€crime.€€Naval€Criminal€InvestigativeÏService€Agent€James€D.€Campbell€took€the€statement€in€theÏpresence€of€defense€counsel,€but€refused€to€offer€leniency€toÏthe€defendant€in€exchange€for€the€information.€€Afterward,€theÏdefendant€retracted€his€accusation.€€€€Ì€€Ìà àà àBigbee€and€the€defendant€were€also€suspected€of€otherÏcrimes.€€Even€before€Bigbee€and€the€defendant€were€suspects€onÏthese€charges,€officers€had€asked€General€McCutchen€toÏparticipate€in€a€meeting€with€the€two€men.€€Officers€believedÏthat€Bigbee€had€been€involved€in€a€series€of€car€thefts;€theÏdefendant,€claiming€to€be€a€concerned€"father€figure,"€assertedÏthat€he€had€some€information€about€the€Beach's€Market€robberyÏand€murder.€€He€told€the€officers€that€he€believed€he€couldÏdeliver€the€murder€weapon€to€them,€but€wanted€to€make€sure€hisÏcooperation€would€help€Bigbee.€€ÌÌà àà àSome€of€the€other€crimes€under€investigation€occurredÍoutside€Montgomery€County.€€In€early€March,€several€policeÏofficers€and€district€attorneys€from€Montgomery,€€Dickson,€andÏSumner€Counties€met€to€discuss€the€nature€of€the€Ìvarious€crimes€and€the€physical€evidence€that€each€had€obtained.€ÏDetective€Donald€Linzy€and€Sergeant€Paul€Harbsmeier€of€theÏHendersonville€Police€Department€interviewed€the€defendant€aboutÏthe€other€crimes€in€their€county€and€Detective€Linzy€testifiedÏthat€the€defendant€never€mentioned€his€involvement€in€theÏMontgomery€County€robbery.€€During€two€of€the€interviews,€theÏdefendant€attempted€to€make€"a€deal"€with€Sumner€CountyÏauthorities€in€exchange€for€the€information€he€possessed;€theyÏrefused.€€ÌÌà àà àAt€some€point€in€the€investigation€of€the€otherÏcrimes,€the€Sumner€County€officers€obtained€letters€which€theÏdefendant€had€written€to€Bigbee€while€both€were€in€jail.€€DuringÏthe€time€that€Detective€Linzy€and€Sergeant€Harbsmeier€wereÏgathering€information,€the€defendant€contacted€another€localÏattorney€and€expressed€a€desire€to€employ€him.€€Although€heÏalready€had€appointed€counsel,€the€defendant€claimed€that€he€hadÏbeen€unable€to€effectively€communicate€with€his€attorney€and€hadÏbeen€made€several€promises€by€various€law€enforcement€officialsÍwhich€had€not€been€kept.€€When€the€defendant€was€unable€toÏobtain€the€funds€necessary€to€hire€the€second€attorney,€theÏtrial€court€appointed€him€as€co„counsel.€€€Ìà@ àIÌà àà àAfter€a€careful€consideration€of€the€defendant's€claimÏthat€the€statements€made€to€police€after€the€appointment€ofÏcounsel€should€have€been€suppressed,€we€conclude€otherwise.€ÏThere€are€several€reasons:€€first,€the€defendant€was€given€hisÏòòMirandaóó€rights€before€each€statement,€òòseeóó€òòOwens€v.€Stateóó,€561ÏS.W.2d€167,€169€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978)(the€defendant,€who€wasÏgiven€his€òòMirandaóó€rights,€voluntarily€waived€right€to€counselÏwhere€he€sent€for€police,€even€though€police€did€not€contactÏdefense€counsel€prior€to€statement);€second,€the€defendantÏclearly€initiated€each€contact,€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Claybrookóó,€736ÏS.W.2d€95,€102„03€(Tenn.€1987)€and€òòState€v.€Zagorskióó,€701€S.W.2dÏ808,€812€(Tenn.€1985),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€478€U.S.€1010€(1986);€andÏthird,€defense€counsel€conceded€during€the€suppression€hearingÏthat€he€had€never€instructed€law€enforcement€officials€not€toÏtalk€to€his€client€outside€his€presence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Berryóó,Ï592€S.W.2d€553,€561€(Tenn.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€449€U.S.€887Ï(1980)(holding€that€statements€made€to€a€jail€informant,Ïalthough€voluntary,€were€inadmissible€as€a€violation€ofÍdefendant's€sixth€amendment€right,€in€part,€because€defendant'sÏattorney€had€specifically€instructed€officers€not€to€questionÏhis€client€outside€his€presence).€€òòButóó€òòseeóó€òòMcPherson€v.€Stateóó,Ï562€S.W.2d€210,€212„13€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977)(finding€waiver€ofÏright€to€counsel€even€where€defense€counsel€had€instructedÏauthorities€to€take€no€statements€from€his€client€without€hisÏpresence,€where€statement€taken€in€presence€of€neutral€thirdÏparty€corroborated€the€waiver).€€Finally,€a€trial€court'sÏdeterminations€of€fact€at€a€suppression€hearing€are€presumedÏcorrect.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Harbisonóó,€704€S.W.2d€314,€318€(Tenn.),Ïòòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€476€U.S.€1153€(1986).€€Here,€the€trial€court€ruledÏthat€the€defendant€had€knowingly€and€voluntarily€waived€hisÏright€to€counsel€by€initiating€the€conversations.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€makes€the€argument€that€the€policeÏelicited€his€incriminating€statements€by€insinuating€€that€heÏwould€receive€lenient€treatment€in€return.€€The€law€provides,€ofÏcourse,€that€confessions€obtained€through€the€use€of€eitherÏphysical€or€psychological€coercion€must€be€suppressed.€€òòSeeóóÏòòRogers€v.€Richmondóó,€365€U.S.€534,€540„41€(1961).€€A€statementÏwill€not€be€rendered€involuntary,€however,€when€officers€have,Ïwithout€more,€promised€general€assistance.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÍJohnsonóó,€765€S.W.2d€780,€782€(Tenn.€Crim€App.€1988).€€In€orderÏto€render€the€statement€involuntary,€the€defendant€must€haveÏbeen€"gripped€by€the€hope€of€leniency,€and,€as€a€result,€was€notÏable€to€choose€freely€and€rationally€among€the€courses€availableÏto€him."€€òòState€v.€Grady€E.€Shoffneróó,€No.€03C01„9403„CR„00113,Ïslip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€June€27,Ï1995)(citing€òòState€v.€Kellyóó,€603€S.W.2d€726€(Tenn.€1980)).€€TheÏoffer€of€leniency€must€be€clearly€understood€to€be€a€guaranteeÏand€the€defendant's€will€to€resist€must€have€been€criticallyÏimpaired.€€òòIdóó.€€In€òòShoffneróó,€this€court€identified€four€factorsÏcritical€to€the€determination:€€(1)€the€length€of€time€betweenÏthe€arrest€and€confession;€(2)€any€intervening€events€betweenÏarrest€and€confession;€(3)€the€provision€of€òòMirandaóó€warnings;Ïand€(4)€the€purpose€and€conflagrancy€of€official€misconduct.€ÏòòIdóó.€ÌÌà àà àThere€is€no€question€that€the€defendant€was€told€earlyÏon€that€any€information€he€gave€would€benefit€his€brother„in„law,€Roosevelt€Bigbee.€€At€that€time,€however,€the€defendant€wasÏlooked€upon€as€a€well„meaning€citizen€and€concerned€relative,Ïnot€a€suspect€in€the€crime.€€During€this€period,€the€defendantÏhad€made€no€incriminating€statements.€€On€January€28,€1989,Íshortly€after€his€arrest€but€before€the€appointment€of€defenseÏcounsel,€Detective€Denton€told€the€defendant€that€hisÏ"cooperation€would€go€a€long€way€...€[to]€help€yourself."€€NotÏlong€thereafter,€Sergeant€Harbsmeier€and€Detective€Linzy,€bothÏof€the€Hendersonville€Police€Department,€informed€the€defendantÏthat€they€would€discuss€his€willingness€to€assist€with€theÏdistrict€attorney.€€While€informing€the€defendant€that€theyÏcould€not€make€any€promises,€they€did€say€that€they€thought€hisÏassistance€might€help€"quite€a€bit."€€Yet€the€defendant€made€noÏincriminating€statements€about€the€robbery€and€murder€duringÏthis€interview.€€Moreover,€when€the€district€attorney€demandedÏthe€information€offered€by€the€defendant€before€considering€anyÏ"deal,"€the€defendant€refused€to€cooperate.€€From€all€of€this,Ïwe€conclude€that€any€promise€of€benefit€was€of€a€general€natureÏand€did€not€overcome€his€"free€and€rational"€choice.Ìà àà àÌà àà àThe€defendant's€final€challenge€to€the€admissibilityÏof€his€statements€rests€upon€his€claim€that€the€state€violatedÏFormal€Ethics€Opinion€87„F„112:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àDisciplinary€Rule€7„104(A)(1)€of€theÏCode€of€Professional€ResponsibilityÏembodied€in€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€8Ïprohibits€a€lawyer€from€communicating€withÏone€of€adverse€interest€known€to€beÍrepresented€by€a€lawyer€in€the€matterÏwithout€the€prior€consent€of€the€lawyerÏrepresenting€the€adverse€party.ÌÌà@ à*€*€*ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àThe€prohibition€is€intended€toÏpreserve€the€integrity€of€the€client„lawyerÏrelationship€by€protecting€the€representedÏparty€from€the€superior€knowledge€and€skillÏof€the€opposing€lawyer.€€òòSeeóó€òòPowell€v.ÏAlabamaóó,€287€U.S.€45€(1932);€òòUnited€StatesÏv.€Thomasóó,€474€F.2d€110€(10th€Cir.),€òòcertóó.Ïòòdeniedóó,€412€U.S.€932€(1973);€òòState€v.ÏYatmanóó,€320€So.2d€401€(Fla.€Dist.€Ct.€App.Ï1975);€òòTennessee€Bar€Association€v.ÏFreemonóó,€50€Tenn.€App.€567,€362€S.W.2d€828Ï(1961).€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àA€prosecutor€may€not€circumvent€theÏprohibition€through€the€use€of€a€lawÏenforcement€official€or€by€advising€anotherÏto€communicate€in€a€manner€which€would€beÏimpermissible€if€engaged€in€by€theÏprosecutor.€€òòSeeóó€òòPeople€v.€Hobsonóó,€39ÏN.Y.2d€479,€348€N.E.2d€894,€384€N.Y.S.2dÏ419€(1976);€òòShantz€v.€Eymanóó,€418€F.2d€11Ï([9th€Cir.]€1969),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€397€U.S.Ï1021€(1970).€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àThe€prohibition€applies€even€thoughÏthe€defendant€has€requested€the€interview,Ïòòe.g.óó,€òòPeople€v.€Greenóó,€405€Mich.€273,€274ÏN.W.2d€448€(1979);€òòState€v.€Brittonóó,€157€W.ÏVa.€711,€203€S.E.2d€462€(1974),€or€whereÏthe€interview€is€in€connection€with€€theÏinvestigation€of€other€criminal€activity,Ïòòe.g.óó,€òòIn€Re€Burrowsóó,€291€Or.€135,€629€P.2dÏ820€(1981).ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àABA€Informal€Opinion€1373€(Dec.€2,Ï1976)€held€that€a€prosecutor€violated€DR€7„104(A)(1)€by€forwarding€to€the€defendantÍcopies€of€letters€to€defense€counselÏcontaining€plea€bargain€offers.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àA€state€prosecutor€is€ethicallyÏobliged€to€avoid€any€and€all€communicationsÏwith€defendants€without€the€knowledge€andÏconsent€of€the€defendant's€attorney.ÌÌÓÓA€violation€of€the€disciplinary€rules,€however,€is€notÏnecessarily€a€valid€basis€for€suppression€of€evidence.€€In€òòStateÏv.€Mosheróó,€755€S.W.2d€464,€469€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988),€theÏcourt€ruled€as€follows:€€€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àDisciplinary€Rule€7.104(A)(1)€of€theÏCode€of€Professional€Responsibility€isÏincorporated€into€Rule€8€of€the€TennesseeÏRules€of€the€Supreme€Court.€€ThatÏprohibition€against€communication€absentÏthe€consent€of€adverse€counsel€has€beenÏfound€to€apply€in€criminal€cases.€€òòU.S.€v.ÏSpringeróó,€460€F.2d€1344,€1354€(7th€Cir.Ï1971),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€409€U.S.€873,€93€S.Ct.Ï205,€34€L.Ed.2d€125€(1972).€€Some€courtsÏhave€found€the€rule€applicable€to€non„lawyer€law€enforcement€officers€acting€onÏbehalf€of€prosecutors€under€an€alter„egoÏtheory.€€òòU.S.€v.€Thomasóó,€474€F.2d€110,€112Ï(10th€Cir.€1973),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€412€U.S.Ï932,€93€S.Ct.€2758,€37€L.Ed.2d€160€(1973).€ÏNone€of€the€courts€recognizing€theseÏprinciples,€however,€have€excluded€theÏevidence€acquired€pursuant€to€theÏprohibited€communication.€€ÌÌÓÓIn€òòUnited€States€v.€Vasquezóó,€675€F.2d€16,€17€(2nd€Cir.€1982),Ïthe€defendant€sought€to€suppress€a€tape€recording€of€hisÏconversation€with€an€informant€made€after€the€employment€ofÍdefense€counsel:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àSuch€a€principle€would€simply€enableÏcriminal€suspects,€by€retaining€counsel,€toÏhamper€the€government's€conduct€ofÏlegitimate€investigations.€€Even€assumingÏthis€provision€of€the€Code€to€be€applicableÏto€a€criminal€investigation,€which€isÏdoubtful,€it€was€not€intended€to€lead€toÏsuch€a€result.ÌÌÓÓIn€our€view,€the€ruling€in€òòMosheróó€controls€on€this€issue.€€Any€Ïviolation€of€the€code€would€not€result€in€the€suppression€of€theÏevidence.€€€ÌÌà@ àII€and€IIIÌà àà àThe€defendant's€second€and€third€issues€addressÏwhether€the€district€attorney€general€and€his€staff€should€haveÏbeen€disqualified€from€prosecuting€these€charges.€€The€defendantÏasserts€that€DR€5„101(B)€and€5„102€and€the€"unsworn€witnessÏrule"€precluded€the€participation€of€the€District€AttorneyÏGeneral€of€Montgomery€County.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€focus€on€whether€a€district€attorney€or€anyÏassistants€within€the€office€should€be€disqualified€oftenÏdepends€upon€the€value€of€their€potential€testimony.€€In€òòBowmanÏv.€Stateóó,€598€S.W.2d€809,€811€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980),€forÍexample,€this€court€held€that€it€was€not€error€to€allow€theÏrebuttal€testimony€of€a€prosecuting€attorney€because€it€was€not€Ïforeseeable€before€trial€that€his€testimony€would€be€needed.€ÏThe€court€pointed€out€that€there€were€two€prosecutors€and€thatÏthe€one€who€testified€participated€in€a€limited€fashion€afterÏthe€need€for€his€rebuttal€testimony€became€apparent.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóóÏòòState€v.€Mona€Lisa€Watsonóó,€No.€24€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,ÏAugust€14,€1991),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1992)(assistantÏdistrict€attorney€listed€on€witness€list€not€disqualified€afterÏexplaining€that€he€had€merely€presented€the€case€to€the€grandÏjury,€would€not€be€called€at€trial,€and€actually€did€notÏtestify).€€ÌÌà àà àGenerally,€a€district€attorney€should€not€participateÏin€the€prosecution€when€it€appears€that€he€or€she€will€be€calledÏas€a€witness€at€trial.€€DR€5„101(b)€and€5„102.€€€Here,€theÏdefendant€gave€the€assistant€district€attorney€who€prosecutedÏthe€charges€notice€in€advance€of€trial€that€he€would€be€calledÏas€a€witness.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòState€v.€Browningóó,€666€S.W.2d€80,€86„87€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1983),€the€court€ruled€that€when€called€as€a€witnessÍby€the€other€party,€the€prosecutor€was€under€no€obligation€toÏwithdraw€unless€"it€is€apparent€that€his€testimony€is€or€may€beÏprejudicial€to€his€client."€€€(Quoting€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€8,€DRÏ5„102(B)).€€The€assistant€attorney€general€in€òòBrowningóó€testifiedÏonly€at€the€suppression€hearing€and€there€was€no€indication€thatÏthe€defendant€ever€expressed€an€intent€to€call€the€assistant€asÏa€witness€at€trial.€€The€court€noted€that€the€attorney'sÏtestimony€"was€not€prejudicial€to€the€interests€of€the€State,Ïhis€client€in€[the]€case."€€òòIdóó.€at€87.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòState€v.€Billy€Ernest€Kilburnóó,€No.€2€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€at€Jackson,€August€9,€1989),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó,Ï(Tenn.€1989),€defense€counsel€gave€an€assistant€districtÏattorney€pretrial€notice€that€he€would€be€called€as€a€witness.€ÏThe€trial€court€determined€that€the€assistant's€testimony€wouldÏmerely€be€cumulative€of€others€who€participated€in€theÏinvestigation€of€the€case,€and€refused€to€disqualify€on€theÏbasis€that€it€would€work€a€hardship€on€the€state.€€This€courtÏaffirmed€holding€that€the€mere€participation€of€an€assistantÏdistrict€attorney€in€the€investigation€is€no€reason€toÏdisqualify.€€òòIdóó.,€slip€op.€at€7€(citing€òòState€v.€Claybrookóó,€736ÏS.W.2d€95€(Tenn.€1987)€and€òòState€v.€Caruthersóó,€676€S.W.2d€935Í(Tenn.€1984)).€€ÌÌà àà àIt€is€left€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€courtÏas€to€whether€to€either€€allow€or€require€a€member€of€theÏprosecuting€team€to€testify.€€Because€of€the€potential€forÏmisuse€of€the€privileges€by€the€defense,€the€practice€is€not€toÏbe€permitted€unless€absolutely€necessary.€€òòSeeóó€òòBowman€v.€Stateóó,Ï598€S.W.2d€at€811.€€€ÌÌà àà àHere,€the€assistant€district€attorney€was€the€onlyÏwitness€called€by€the€defense€at€trial.€€His€testimony€isÏtranscribed€over€forty„five€pages€within€the€record.€€Many€ofÏthe€questions€asked€by€defense€counsel€dealt€with€matters€thatÏoccurred€during€Bigbee's€trial,€such€as€the€promises€made€toÏBigbee,€and€the€decisions€about€what€fingerprint€evidence€wouldÏbe€subjected€to€analysis.€€In€our€view,€any€one€of€the€severalÏinvestigating€officers€could€have€supplied€the€answers€given€forÏthese€questions.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€assistant€district€attorney€did,€however,€answer€aÏfew€questions€about€the€defendant's€telephone€calls€to€theÏdistrict€attorney's€office.€€He€was€asked€if€the€officeÍmaintained€records€concerning€the€defendant's€waiver€of€hisÏsixth€amendment€rights.€€As€to€these€matters,€the€assistantÏdistrict€attorney€was€probably€the€most€likely€person€to€haveÏaccurate€answers€to€the€questions€propounded.€€These€questionsÏwere,€however,€pertinent€to€the€issue€of€whether€the€defendantÏhad€knowingly€and€voluntarily€waived€his€right€to€counsel€byÏseeking€to€trade€information€for€lenient€treatment.€€Once€thatÏissue€had€been€resolved€in€the€suppression€hearing,€there€wasÏlittle€value€in€the€testimony€of€the€witness€at€trial.€€UnderÏall€of€the€circumstances,€we€cannot€find€that€the€trial€courtÏabused€its€discretion€by€refusing€to€disqualify€the€office€ofÏthe€district€attorney€from€participating€in€the€case.ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€Judge€ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJohn€H.€Peay,€JudgeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌRex€H.€Ogle,€Special€JudgeÌÌ