WPC$ # VUNa % 0Dw@ 4A U 0d 0D b0 0J8 0T 0^ 0h4 0r 0| 0 0 1u 0d By D3U>U * 0@1B)qDC AM#*(Muv~v2 AO#T# 0D$ D/^$ B$HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLH(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ ./D017D8E9 :;D<Ӏԡ "|xE(8(3I$ !   `   0  (#$  0  - -2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X d'''''dxd<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Arial("$    % Line 7 d....7Border 1dd-/C << G  !  #d#+     ,,   YYY FILED,XMay7,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !  #d#+      $       ,,Obviously,thelackofinterestbythedistrictattorneygeneralwasaresult,atleastinpart,ofhisdeterminationthathistimewouldbebetterspentonothermatters.Haditnotbeenfortheavailabilityofthe specialprosecutors,apleaagreementfavorabletotheDefendantmightwellhavematerialized.  !#d#+      $       ,,ԀThelegislativehistoryofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection87401indicatesthattheGeneralAssemblywassomewhatawareofthedangersofallowingprivatecounseltocontrolthepleabargainingprocess.TheoriginallanguageoftheHousebillprovidedthatprivatecounselcouldparticipatefullyincases,evenwherepleabargainingwasdeemedappropriate.UpontherecommendationoftheHouseJudiciaryCommittee,however,thebillwasamendedtostrikethatlanguagesothatprivatecounselwouldnothaveexcessivepoweroverthepleabargainingprocess.  !#d#+      $       ,,ԀInJones,anotherFourthCircuitcase,thecourtdistinguishedGangerandfoundnodueprocessviolation.Privatecounselwasretainedtoassistinthecriminalprosecutionandsimultaneouslyrepresentedtheplaintiffsinacivilsuitarisingfromthesameincident.InJones,however,thepublicprosecutorretainedcontroloverdiscretionaryfunctions,andtherewasnoevidenceoftheprivateprosecutorsusingtheirpositiontoexactamoregeneroussettlementinthecivilcase.Whilethecourtdidnotendorseprivateprosecutorsalsobeinginvolvedinacivilcase,itfoundthatthelevelofinvolvementinthatcasedidnotconstituteadueprocessviolation.  !#d#+      $       ,,Itisreadilyapparentthatdiscussionsofacashsettlementofacivilsuitinconjunctionwithresolutionofacriminalprosecutionprovideasignificantandalarmingsettingforabuse.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . +     ` \RA'\+,\RA'\7Xdd7      R01/A1-j|` . `@Rߛ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEATNASHVILLE̜JANUARYSESSION,1997  ӜSTATEOFTENNESSEE, ) C.C.A.NO.01C019604CC00106     )  Appellee,   )     )     ) PUTNAMCOUNTY̜VS.     )      ) HON.LEONBURNS,JR. ,̜ FABIENELDRIDGE,   ) JUDGE      )  Appellant.   ) (AttemptedSecondDegreeMurder) ̜   CONCURRINGOPINION Ӝ  ӛ Iconcurfullywiththeresultreachedbymylearnedandablecolleague,JudgeRiley.Iwriteseparatelytoexpressmysignificantlydifferentviewsconcerningtheroleandmannerofparticipationofprivatelyemployedattorneysincriminalprosecutions.Ifirstnotethatwhileitisobviousthat privatelegalcounselwerepleasedthattheywereallowedtoassumealmosttotalcontrolofthiscriminalprosecution,andthusbecome specialprosecutors,theywereabletodosoonlyafterthepubliclyemployedprosecutorsfromtheofficeofthedistrictattorneygeneraldeclinedfurthersignificantinvolvementintheprosecutionofthisattemptedmurdercaseduetotheir busyschedules. 2   כ Thelegislaturehasspecificallyauthorizedthevictimofacrimeorthefamilymembersofavictimofacrimetoemploy privatelegalcounseltoactascocounselwiththedistrictattorneygeneralorthedistrictattorneygeneralsdeputiesintryingcases,withtheextentofparticipationofsuchprivatelyemployedcounselbeingatthediscretionofthedistrictattorneygeneral.Tenn.CodeAnn.87401(emphasisadded).Ifprivatelyemployedcounselsonlyparticipationisintryingthecase,asprovidedbythestatute,andthedistrictattorneygeneralretainscontroloftheprosecution,thepotentialforviolationofthedefendantsrightsisreduced. Althoughthemajorityopiniondoesnotconcludethatthisstatuteisunconstitutionalasviolatingthedueprocessrightsofthecriminaldefendant,theopinionstatesthatitis unnecessarytoreachtheissueastowhetherthedistrictattorneygeneralretainedadequatecontroloftheprosecution.Ibelievethatindeterminingwhetheradefendantsdueprocessrightsareviolatedina͜caseinvolvingprivatelegalcounselservingas specialprosecutors,itisindeednecessarytoreachtheissueastowhetherthedistrictattorneygeneralretainedadequatecontroloftheprosecution.Inthiscase,however,Ihavenohesitationinconcludingthatthedistrictattorneygeneraldidnotretainadequatecontrol.Infact,itappearsthatthedistrictattorneygeneralretainedverylittlecontrol. Iagree,aspointedoutbythemajority,thattheethicaldilemmasfacing specialprosecutorsarequiteseriousandanyethicalviolationsontheirpartarerelevanttoadeterminationofwhetheradefendantwasdeprivedofhisrighttoafairtrial.PerhapsitwouldbehelpfulifoursupremecourtspecificallyaddressedtheseethicalconcernsinourCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.Themajorityopinionfocusesontheethicaldilemmafacingprivatecounselrepresentingthevictiminacivilsuittotheexclusionofanalyzingthelevelofparticipationofprivatecounselinthecriminalprosecution.Itappearstome,however,thatprivatecounselemployedforafixedfeesolelytoparticipateinthecriminalprosecutionfacesessentiallythesameethicaldilemmaasprivatecounselwhoalsorepresentsthevictiminarelatedcivilsuit,namelytheconflictbetweenzealousrepresentationofaprivateclientandthepursuitofjusticeinthepublicinterest. Iamnotconvincedthattheparticipationascocounselofavictimsattorneywhorepresentsthevictiminarelatedpendingcivillawsuitagainstthecriminaldefendantnecessarilyandalwayswillviolateadefendantsrighttodueprocessoflawandthusrequireaconviction,otherwiseobtainedinaccordancewithlaw,tobereversed.Ibelievethisdeterminationisnecessarilydependentuponthedegreeofparticipationintheprosecutionbyprivatelegalcounselandbythecorrespondingdegreeofcontrolovertheprosecutionretainedbytheofficeofthedistrictattorneygeneral. Asmanycourtsandcommentatorshaverecognized,thepotentialdangertothedueprocessguaranteeoffundamentalfairnessismostpronouncedwhenprivatecounselparticipatesinthediscretionaryfunctionsofthedistrictattorneygeneral,suchasthepleabargainingprocessaswellasthedecisionsofwhatchargestoseekandwhethertoprosecuteatall. 3   כSee,e.g.,Dickv.ϜScroggy,882F.2d192(6thCir.1989);Jonesv.Richards,776F.2d1244(4thCir.1985) 4   כ;Gangerv.Peyton,379F.2d709(4thCir.1967);JohnD.Bessler,ThePublicInterestandtheUnconstitutionalityofPrivateProsecutors,47Ark.L.Rev.511,53140(1994);PatriciaMoran,Note,PrivateProsecutorsinCriminalContemptActionsUnderRule42(b)oftheFederalRulesofCriminalProcedure,54FordhamL.Rev.1141,115859(1986);AndrewSidman,Note,TheOutmodedConceptofPrivateProsecution,25Am.U.L.Rev.754,793(1976).Thisheightenedconcernstemsfromtherecognitionthatthediscretionaryfunctionsofthedistrictattorneygeneralare,inasense,moredifficulttoreviewthaneverydaytrialpractice.Prudencedictatesthatcourtsbemostvigilantwithregardtosituationsinvolvingthepotentialforabusewhichtendtoevadejudicialreviewthroughordinarymeans.Thus,whereasimpropertrialconductofprivatecounselissubjecttoreviewinmuchthesamewayasthetrialconductofanoverzealouspublicprosecutor,theparticipationbyprivatecounselinthediscretionaryfunctionsofthedistrictattorneygeneralisofgreaterconcernbecauseofnotonlytheethicaldilemmafacedbyprivatecounselbutalsotheinherentinadequacyofjudicialreviewofpotentialabusesofthosediscretionaryfunctionsbyprivatecounsel.Itisthereforemybeliefthatthedegreeofparticipationofprivatecounselinaprosecutionhasgreatsignificanceregardlessofwhetherprivatecounselisretainedonlytoparticipateintheprosecutionorrepresentsthevictiminacivilsuitaswell. If,inthecasesubjudice,privatelegalcounselhadparticipatedinthistrialbybeingseatedatcounseltablewiththeassistantdistrictattorney,advisingwiththeassistantdistrictattorneyduringthecourseofthetrial,andevenparticipatinginsomequestioningofsomeofthewitnesses,IdonotbelievetheDefendantsdueprocessrightswouldnecessarilyhavebeenviolated.However,ifprivatelegalcounselhadnotparticipatedinthetrialatall,buttheofficeofthedistrictattorneygeneralhaddeferredtotallytoprivatelegalcounselontheissueofapleaagreement,IbelievetheDefendantsdueprocessrightswouldhavebeenviolated. Here,Iconcludethatthedistrictattorneygeneralfailedtoretainadequatecontroloftheprosecution.Itappearsthatthecontrolofthecriminalprosecutionwastotallyrelinquishedtotheattorneysrepresentingthevictiminapendingcivillawsuitarisingfromthesameincident.The specialprosecutorsapparentlycommunicatedwithdefensecounselconcerningasubstantialcashsettlementofthecivilcaseinconjunctionwithapossiblepleaagreementinthecriminal͜case. 5   כIconcurthatthedegreeofinvolvementofthese specialprosecutorsϜwentbeyondtheroleof cocounselattrialasanticipatedbyourlegislatureandviolatedtheDefendantsdueprocessrightsandwasprejudicialtothejudicialprocess.I,therefore,agreethatthiscasemustbereversedandremandedforanewtrial.    ____________________________________     DAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGE