ÿWPCƒ" )ÇÄÉHF‹|SŠwü÷øÏýôkº»÷·Í Ò“+´žm˧ۗ(’\âáQ³&ûäÄŽ¡Ü!éò¬¢ l5°¬nuP ¨Â¡:ñ–Qg$©¯×-ÝOs¥g·YÜÎ07¬t·ìts„ ®Ò£“ÆYÀª¬×8ª¬gª³IØRTš Öiç›tù($Iþû-5&¢%‡zŠˆ7#’d°Îùv[²,ôµ+«Âg -w‚ßD–ÓôÕ‘ØžŒ6ÿ5M ¤EUë–2²‹ÎD°™DHµ8y?}½)ñOi‰+Qáð¤Ño\?¼„[Ô8É4¾¨û+»<Ýd±KF羘l’ ú>2õ÷k’†ø¤#Ïâ%4™ûi !MþŠPBÐò¡{Ïæ>¿Y Xê|¸õé3»‡ÞÞxª&ÇÛ¸±OÖ'_‹*Dw›"›3k„ô€·ºèÜ/·ƒu›.gº–È5Ú$y†k$ ƒBözrÂHÙAV¹ÛÜ §®rìMà{ù™éa´F»ÎäžÞpD•;LZ£5ÕÐÄ-‹(Mœ½Ì ¹3ë]MákUæ»øêq~@~´?Æ…IŒêÍXÿÌiMLùæ$øªeg†¿Àq0Ó/fXN§m>XÎ b %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ †‘ ÆÆÝÆ£Æi 0D/NsuôEüíþ™ëä„-hh_••••„ôôôôôôôôôôôôôôbxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 0뀀€€ Bkk 0¤ˆ D3, D-_ 0KŒŒ ASׯ* 0¤ð 0D”! A«Ø!»–™T) (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularsM)3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 |Ý ƒR“«$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€XX™X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô€ô¾­òXXX™ÔSeeòòalsoóó€Tenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€8,€DR€5„105€(a€lawyer€should€refuse€to€accept€or€continue€employment€if€theÐ ° Ðinterest€of€another€client€may€impair€the€exercise€of€ð ðindependent€judgmentðð);€Tenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€8,€Ô_ÔECÔ_Ô€5„2€(a€lawyerÐ œì Ðshould€not€accept€employment€if€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that€personal€interest€will€ð ðaffect€adversely€the€adviceÐ `° Ðto€be€given€or€services€rendered€the€prospective€clientðð);€Tenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€8,€Ô_ÔECÔ_Ô€5„14€(ð ðindependent€professionalÐ $t Ðjudgmentðð€is€compromised€when€a€lawyer€is€asked€to€represent€two€or€more€clients€with€differing€interests).Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó uÝ ƒR“«$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€XX™X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô€ô¾­òXXX™ÔIndeed,€this€tension€in€creating€dual€roles€has€led€several€courts€to€hold€that€the€use€of€a€private€attorney€asÐ ° Ða€prosecutor€violates€due€process.€€òòSeeóó€Bessler,€47€Ark.€L.€Rev.€at€548„49.  ãÝ ƒR“«$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€XX™X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô€ô¾­òXXX™ÔThe€State€has€not€appealed€this€part€of€the€trial€courtððs€ruling. Ý ƒR“«$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€XX™X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô€ô¾­òXXX™ÔÔ_ÔParrishÔ_Ô€preferred€the€more€expensive€practice€of€using€court€reporters€for€this€purpose,€whereas€the€practiceÐ ° Ðof€the€District€Attorney€Generalððs€office€was€simply€to€use€tape€recorders. ÚÝ ƒR“«$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€XX™X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô€ô¾­òXXX™ÔòòSeeóó€Fred€Zacharias,€òòStructuring€the€Ethics€of€Prosecutorial€Trial€Practice:€Can€Prosecutors€Do€Justiceóó,€44Ð ° ÐVand.€L.€Rev.€45€(1991);€George€T.€Frampton,€Jr.,€òòSome€Practical€and€Ethical€Problems€of€Prosecuting€Public€Officialsóó,Ð œì Ð36€Md.€L.€Rev.€5€(1976).€òòóó #Ñ#€CXÿÿd#Ñ UÝ ƒR“«$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€XX™X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô€ô¾­òXXX™ÔThe€charges€against€Ô_ÔCulbreathÔ_Ô€included€ten€counts€of€promoting€prostitution,€six€counts€of€prostitution,€andÐ ° Ðtwo€counts€of€public€indecency.€€The€charges€against€Ô_ÔMcCallieÔ_Ô€included€ten€counts€of€promoting€prostitution,€six€countsÐ œì Ðof€prostitution,€four€counts€of€public€indecency,€and€two€counts€of€presenting€live€obscene€performances. zÝ ƒR“«$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€XX™X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô€ô¾­òXXX™ÔGiven€the€inherent€and€pervasive€nature€of€the€misconduct,€we€reject€the€suppression€of€evidence€remedyÐ ° Ðsuggested€by€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.€€The€conflict€of€interest€and€resulting€misconduct€permeated€the€entireÐ œì Ðprosecution€and€rendered€the€proceedings€as€a€whole€fundamentally€unfair.€€Under€these€circumstances,€dismissal€of€theÐ `° Ðindictments,€and€not€suppression€of€the€evidence,€is€the€appropriate€remedy.- ù-(|G2“«$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ U»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€XX™X»»Ô d(|3g$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ U»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3g$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ U»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ U»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼ U»»»Ôò òÓ  Óó óÑ€û#ÑÑ  Ñà@@7 7 ìàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐÔ  Ôà@@''%ìàAT€JACKSONÐ Â Ðà@@ff!ìàApril€12,€2000€SessionÐ Ô$ ÐÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEà0 @ à€v.€DONALD€L.€Ô_ÔCULBREATHÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔGENNAÔ_ÔÐ øH ÐÔ_ÔMcCALLIEÔ_ÔÔ‡XX™X»¼ UÔó óÐ  \ ÐÓ­ÓÌà@ ìàò òAppeal€By€Permission€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsˆÐ  \ Ðà@&&ìàCriminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyˆÐ ø H Ðà@Ç Ç ìàNos.€96„13497,€97„00667,€„72,€„73,€„75€€€€€€L.T.€Ô_ÔLaffertyÔ_Ô,€JudgeˆÐ ä 4  ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<§` A߈Ð ¨ø  ÐÌà@  ìàNo.€W1999„01553„SC„R11„CD€„€Filed€October€20,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ԈР£ó  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<z` AßÐ {Ë Ðó óÔ#†¼ U»XXX™X#ÔÌÌò òó óÔ€XX™X»¼ UÔWe€granted€this€appeal€to€determine:€1)€whether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€disqualifyingÐ ®þ Ða€District€Attorney€General€and€his€staff€due€to€the€use€of€a€private€attorney€to€assist€the€prosecutionÐ šê Ðwhere€the€private€attorney€received€substantial€compensation€from€a€private,€special€interest€groupÐ †Ö Ðand€2)€whether€the€trial€court€properly€dismissed€the€indictments€based€on€a€violation€of€due€process.€Ð r ÐThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€regarding€disqualification€but€heldÐ ^® Ðthat€the€appropriate€remedy€for€the€due€process€violation€was€suppression€of€the€evidence€and€notÐ Jš Ðdismissal€of€the€indictments.€€We€agree€that€the€prosecutionððs€appointment€and€use€of€a€privateÐ 6† Ðattorney€who€received€substantial€compensation€from€a€private,€special€interest€group€created€aÐ "r Ðconflict€of€interest€and€an€appearance€of€impropriety€that€required€disqualification€of€the€DistrictÐ ^ ÐAttorney€Generalððs€office.€€We€further€conclude€that€the€prosecutorððs€use€of€the€private€attorneyÐ úJ Ðunder€the€circumstances€of€this€case€violated€the€defendantsðð€right€to€due€process€under€theÐ æ6 ÐTennessee€Constitution€and€required€dismissal€of€the€indictments.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€theÐ Ò" ÐCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€is€reversed€in€part€and€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reinstated.ò òÐ ¾  ÐÌà@KKìàTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€Appeal€by€Permission;€Judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€à@@3 3 ìàˆÐ –"æ! Ðà@$ $ ìàReversed€In€Part;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Reinstated.ó óˆÐ ‚#Ò" ÐòòÌE.€Riley€Anderson,€C.óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòò€Ô_ÔAdolphoÔ_Ô€A.€Birch,€Jr.€óóandòòÐ Z%ª $ ÐJanice€M.€Holder,óó€JòòJ.óó,€joined.€òò€William€M.€Barker,ò ò€ó ó€Jóó.,€filed€a€concurring€opinion.€€òòFrank€F.Ð F&–!% ÐÔ_ÔDrowotaÔ_Ô,€III,óó€not€participating.€Ð 6'†"& ÐÌÔ_ÔFriersonÔ_Ô€M.€Graves,€Jr.,€and€Thomas€E.€Hansom,€Memphis,€Tennessee,€for€the€defendants,€DonaldÐ )^$( ÐÔ_ÔCulbreathÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔGennaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔMcCallieÔ_Ô.Ð ú)J%) ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Elizabeth€T.Ð Ò+"'+ ÐRyan,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€William€L.€Gibbons,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Amy€P.Ð ¾,(, ÐÔ_ÔWeirichÔ_Ô€and€Jennifer€S.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€Attorneys€General,€for€the€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ª-ú(-ý ÐÑû#Ñâ âÑ8€X™XXdì»»d8Ñâ âÑ  ÑÔ_ÔÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ œì ÐòòóóÌà@%ìàòòò òBACKGROUNDóóˆÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àó óThe€trial€court€conducted€an€extensive€evidentiary€hearing€on€the€issues€and€set€forth€detailedÐ L œ Ðfindings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€in€a€22„page€order.€€We€shall€summarize€the€relevant€eventsÐ 8 ˆ Ðbased€on€the€entire€record,€as€well€as€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€€€€ò òÐ $ t ÐÌà  àó óIn€December€of€1995,€Larry€Parrish,€an€attorney€in€Memphis,€Tennessee,€was€approached€byÐ ü L  Ðthe€executive€director€of€an€organization€known€as€the€Citizens€for€Community€Values,€Inc.,Ð è 8  Ð(ð ðCCVðð),€who€asked€him€to€meet€with€two€Shelby€County€assistant€district€attorneys,€Amy€WeirichÐ Ô$  Ðand€Jennifer€Nichols,€regarding€the€prosecution€of€obscenity€cases.€€Parrish,€a€former€AssistantÐ À  ÐUnited€States€Attorney,€was€experienced€in€the€prosecution€of€obscenity€cases.€€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àParrish€met€with€Weirich€and€Nichols€for€three€hours.€€When€they€asked€for€his€help,€ParrishÐ „Ô  Ðreplied,€ð ðI€havenððt€been€asked.ðð€€On€the€following€day,€then„Shelby€County€District€Attorney€JohnÐ pÀ ÐPierotti€contacted€Parrish€and€requested€his€assistance.€Pierotti€told€Parrish€that€his€office€could€notÐ \¬ Ðpay€for€Parrishððs€services€but€could€reimburse€expenses.€€When€Parrish€asked€if€he€could€beÐ H˜ Ðcompensated€by€outside€€sources,€Pierotti€agreed.€€€According€to€Parrish,€ð ðthatððs€how€it€got€started.ððÐ 4„ ÐÌà  àThereafter,€Parrish€conducted€an€extensive€investigation€into€sexually„oriented€businessesÐ  \ Ðin€Shelby€County,€Tennessee,€with€the€assistance€of€two€assistant€district€attorneys,€an€investigatorÐ øH Ðfrom€the€District€Attorney€Generalððs€office,€and€investigators€from€the€Tennessee€Bureau€ofÐ ä4 ÐInvestigation€and€the€Department€of€Revenue.€€Parrish€met€with€these€employees€in€his€law€firmÐ Ð  Ðoffice€on€a€daily€basis€for€several€months.€€Beginning€in€January€of€1996,€the€groupððs€investigationÐ ¼  Ðconsisted€of€conducting€surveillance€of€sexually„oriented€establishments€and€taking€statements€fromÐ ¨ø Ða€large€number€of€witnesses.€€Although€Parrish€testified€that€it€was€ð ðunderstoodðð€that€General€PierottiÐ ”ä Ðhad€the€ultimate€decision„making€authority,€there€were€no€procedures€or€guidelines€establishingÐ €Ð ÐParrishððs€specific€duties€or€Pierottiððs€oversight.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€initial€agreement€called€for€the€District€Attorney€Generalððs€office€to€pay€for€expensesÐ D!” Ðincurred€during€the€investigation,€but€Parrish€began€to€pay€expenses€from€contributions€by€CCV€andÐ 0"€  Ðnumerous€members€of€the€community.€€Parrish€testified€that€CCV€received€a€monthly€statementÐ #l! Ðitemizing€his€time€and€expenses,€just€as€any€other€client.€€Parrishððs€expenses€included€the€use€of€courtÐ $X" Ðreporters€to€take€statements,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€a€TV/VCR,€copying€and€courier€expenses,€video€monitors,€specialÐ ô$D # Ðtelephone€lines,€and€various€office€supplies€and€equipment.€€The€expenses€were€paid€from€CCVÐ à%0!$ Ðcontributions.€€From€December€of€1995€to€July€of€1996,€Parrish€accumulated€over€2,400€hours€inÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€investigation.€€His€fee€was€approximately€$212,000€and€expenses€totaled€over€$34,000.€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÐ ¤(ô#' Ðà  àOn€July€11,€1996,€Parrish€was€ð ðappointedðð€as€a€ð ðSpecial€Assistant€District€Attorneyðð€byÐ ° ÐGeneral€Pierotti€and€was€administered€an€oath€of€office€for€the€first€time.€€On€the€same€day,€a€civilÐ œì Ðnuisance€suit€seeking€injunctive€relief€against€several€sexually„oriented€businesses€was€filed€inÐ ˆØ ÐShelby€County€Chancery€Court.€€The€civil€complaint€was€signed€by€Parrish€as€ð ðSpecial€AssistantÐ tÄ ÐDistrict€Attorney€General,ðð€District€Attorney€General€Pierotti,€and€two€assistant€district€attorneys.€Ð `° ÐÌà  àAt€Pierottiððs€request,€Parrish€was€appointed€as€additional€counsel€in€matters€relating€to€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðcivil€cases€in€chancery€court€by€Governor€Don€Sundquist€on€August30,€1996.€€The€letter€ofÐ $ t Ðappointment€noted€that€Parrish€would€not€be€compensated€by€the€State,€that€Parrish€would€discloseÐ  ` Ðthe€amount€and€source€of€any€compensation€received,€that€such€information€was€a€matter€of€publicÐ ü L  Ðrecord,€and€that€Parrish€was€under€the€direct€supervision€of€General€Pierotti.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àWhen€Pierotti€resigned,€effective€November€1,€1996,€his€successor,€William€Gibbons,Ð À  Ðcontinued€to€work€with€Parrish€in€the€investigation€and€prosecution€of€sexually„oriented€businesses.€Ð ¬ü  ÐIn€addition€to€the€civil€nuisance€suit€already€filed€in€chancery€court,€Gibbons€sought€criminalÐ ˜è  Ðindictments€from€the€grand€jury.€€In€December€of€1996,€the€grand€jury€returned€an€18„countÐ „Ô  Ðindictment€against€the€defendant,€Donald€L.€Culbreath,€and€a€22„count€indictment€against€the€co„Ð pÀ Ðdefendant,€Genna€McCallie.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€On€July€31,€1997,€the€Governor€appointed€Parrish€as€additionalÐ \¬ Ðcounsel€in€the€pending€civil€cases€and€the€pending€criminal€indictments.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€found€that€over€a€19„month€period,€Parrish€received€$410,931.87€for€hisÐ  p Ðservices€from€CCV€and€other€private€contributors€between€December€of€1995€and€July€of€1997.€€OfÐ  \ Ðthis€amount,€Parrishððs€expenses€exceeded€$100,000.€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€found€that€Parrishððs€substantial€involvement€in€the€prosecution€of€these€casesÐ Ð  Ðand€his€ð ðenormousðð€compensation€from€a€private,€special€interest€group€created€a€conflict€of€interestÐ ¼  Ðthat€required€Parrishððs€disqualification.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trial€court€also€determined€that€the€conflict€of€interestÐ ¨ø Ðcreated€an€appearance€of€impropriety€that€required€disqualification€of€the€District€Attorney€GeneralÐ ”ä Ðand€his€office.€€The€trial€court€concluded€that€these€actions€violated€the€defendantsðð€right€to€dueÐ €Ð Ðprocess€and€dismissed€the€indictments.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€held€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€inÐ D!” Ðdisqualifying€Parrish€and€the€entire€District€Attorney€Generalððs€office€based€on€the€appearance€ofÐ 0"€  Ðimpropriety.€€The€court€agreed€that€the€defendantsðð€right€to€due€process€had€been€violated,€butÐ #l! Ðsuggested€that€the€appropriate€remedy€was€suppression€of€the€evidence€and€not€dismissal€of€theÐ $X" Ðindictments.Ð ô$D # ÐÐ à%0!$ Ðà  àWe€granted€this€appeal€to€review€these€important€questions.Ð ° ÐÌÌà@  "ìàò òó óà@@ÏÏ"ìàò òòòDISQUALIFICATIONó óóóˆÐ tÄ ÐÌò òó óà  àThe€State€contends€that€the€trial€courtððs€disqualification€of€the€District€Attorney€General€andÐ L œ Ðhis€staff€was€improper€because€there€was€no€conflict€of€interest€and€no€appearance€of€impropriety.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐThe€State€argues€that€the€District€Attorney€maintained€control€over€the€prosecution€and€that€theÐ $ t Ðinterests€of€the€prosecution€and€Parrish€were€identical.€€The€defendants€maintain€that€the€trial€courtÐ  ` Ðproperly€disqualified€Parrish€and€the€entire€District€Attorney€Generalððs€office.à x àÐ ü L  ÐÌà@žž!ìàòòò òStandard€of€Reviewó óóóˆÐ Ô$  ÐÌà  àIn€determining€whether€to€disqualify€a€prosecutor€in€a€criminal€case,€the€trial€court€mustÐ ¬ü  Ðdetermine€whether€there€is€an€actual€conflict€of€interest,€which€includes€any€circumstances€in€whichÐ ˜è  Ðan€attorney€cannot€exercise€his€or€her€independent€professional€judgment€free€of€ð ðcompromisingÐ „Ô  Ðinterests€and€loyalties.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€8,€EC€5„1.€€If€there€is€no€actual€conflict€of€interest,Ð pÀ Ðthe€court€must€nonetheless€consider€whether€conduct€has€created€an€appearance€of€improprietyòòóó.€€òòSeeóóÐ \¬ ÐTenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€8,€EC€9„1,€9„6.€€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àIf€disqualification€is€required€under€either€theory,€the€trial€court€must€also€determine€whetherÐ  p Ðthe€conflict€of€interest€or€appearance€of€impropriety€requires€disqualification€of€the€entire€DistrictÐ  \ ÐAttorney€Generalððs€office.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Tateóó,€925€S.W.2d€548,€550€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€òòóóTheÐ øH Ðdetermination€of€whether€to€disqualify€the€office€of€the€District€Attorney€General€in€a€criminal€caseÐ ä4 Ðrests€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€Appellate€review€of€such€a€ruling€is€limited€to€whetherÐ Ð  Ðthe€trial€court€has€abused€its€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€550.Ð ¼  ÐÌà@ìàòòò òThe€Role€of€Prosecutoró óóóˆÐ ”ä ÐÌà  àA€District€Attorney€General€is€an€elected€constitutional€officer€whose€function€is€to€prosecuteÐ l¼ Ðcriminal€offenses€in€his€or€her€circuit€or€district.€€òòRamsey€v.€Town€of€Oliver€Springsóó,€998€S.W.2dÐ X ¨ Ð207,€209€(Tenn.€1999);€Tenn.€Const.€art.€VI,€ðð€5.€€€The€District€Attorney€General€ð ð[s]hall€prosecuteÐ D!” Ðin€the€courts€of€the€district€all€violations€of€the€state€criminal€statutes€and€perform€all€prosecutorialÐ 0"€  Ðfunctions€attendant€thereto€....ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€8„7„103(1)€(1993€and€Supp.€1999).€€TheÐ #l! Ðprosecutorððs€discretion€to€seek€a€warrant,€presentment,€information,€or€indictment€is€extremely€broadÐ $X" Ðand€subject€only€to€certain€constitutional€restraints.€€òòRamseyóó,€998€S.W.2d€at€209.Ð ô$D # Ðâ âÐ à%0!$ Ðà  àThe€proper€role€of€the€prosecutor€in€our€criminal€justice€system€has€been€addressed€onÐ ° Ðnumerous€occasions€by€various€courts€and€ethical€rules.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€As€early€as€1816,€the€Tennessee€SupremeÐ œì ÐCourt€said€that€a€prosecutorÐ ˆØ Ðâ âÌà8  àis€to€judge€between€the€people€and€the€government;€he€is€to€be€the€safeguard€of€theÐ `° Ðone€and€the€advocate€of€the€rights€of€the€other;€he€ought€not€to€suffer€the€innocent€toÐ L œ Ðbe€oppressed€or€vexatiously€harassed€any€more€than€those€who€deserve€prosecutionÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€escape;€he€is€to€pursue€guilt;€he€is€to€protect€innocence;€he€is€to€judge€ofÐ $ t Ðcircumstances,€and,€according€to€their€true€complexion,€to€combine€the€publicÐ  ` Ðwelfare€and€the€safety€of€the€citizens,€preserving€both€and€not€impairing€either.€òòóó€Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌÌòòFout€v.€Stateóó,€4€Tenn.€(3€Haywood)€98€(1816).€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€said€that€aÐ À  Ðprosecutor:Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àis€the€representative€not€of€an€ordinary€party€to€a€controversy,€but€of€a€sovereigntyÐ „Ô  Ðwhose€obligation€to€govern€impartially€is€as€compelling€as€its€obligation€to€governÐ pÀ Ðat€all;€and€whose€interest,€therefore,€in€a€criminal€prosecution€is€not€that€it€shall€winÐ \¬ Ða€case,€but€that€justice€shall€be€done.€€As€such,€he€is€in€a€peculiar€and€very€definiteÐ H˜ Ðsense€the€servant€of€the€law€the€twofold€aim€of€which€is€that€guilt€shall€not€escape€orÐ 4„ Ðinnocence€suffer.€€He€may€prosecute€with€earnestness€and€vigor€ð!ð€indeed,€he€shouldÐ  p Ðdo€so.€€But,€while€he€may€strike€hard€blows,€he€is€not€at€liberty€to€strike€foul€ones.Ð \Ð Ð  ÐÌÌòòBerger€v.€United€Statesóó,€295€U.S.€78,€88,€55€S.€Ct.€629,€633,€79€L.€Ed.€2d€1314€(1935).€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThese€principles€are€likewise€embodied€òòóówithin€the€ethical€considerations€of€the€Model€CodeÐ ¨ø Ðof€Professional€Responsibility€governing€the€conduct€of€prosecutors:Ð ”ä ÐÌà8  àThe€responsibility€of€a€public€prosecutor€differs€from€that€of€the€usual€advocate;€hisÐ l¼ Ðduty€is€to€seek€justice,€not€merely€to€convict.€€This€special€duty€exists€because:€(1)€theÐ X ¨ Ðprosecutor€represents€the€sovereign€and€therefore€should€use€restraint€in€theÐ D!” Ðdiscretionary€exercise€of€governmental€powers,€such€as€in€the€selection€of€cases€toÐ 0"€  Ðprosecute;€(2)€€during€trial€the€prosecutor€is€not€only€an€advocate€but€also€may€makeÐ #l! Ðdecisions€normally€made€by€an€individual€client,€and€those€affecting€the€publicÐ $X" Ðinterest€should€be€fair€to€all;€and€(3)€in€our€system€of€criminal€justice€the€accused€isÐ ô$D # Ðto€be€given€the€benefit€of€all€reasonable€doubts.€Ðà%0!$Ð Ð  ÐÌÐ ¸'#& ÐTenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€8,€EC€7„13;€òòseeóó€òòABA€Standards€for€Criminal€Justiceóó,€Standard€3„1.1(c)€(1979)Ð ° Ð(ð ð[T]he€duty€of€the€prosecutor€is€to€seek€justice,€not€merely€to€convict.ðð).€€The€Model€Code€alsoÐ œì Ðdiscusses€the€differences€in€the€role€of€the€prosecutor€from€that€of€the€private€attorney:€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  àWith€respect€to€evidence€and€witnesses,€the€prosecutor€has€responsibilities€differentÐ `° Ðfrom€those€of€a€lawyer€in€private€practice;€the€prosecutor€should€make€timelyÐ L œ Ðdisclosure€to€the€defense€of€available€evidence,€known€to€the€prosecutor,€that€tendsÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€negate€the€guilt€of€the€accused,€mitigate€the€degree€of€the€offense,€or€reduce€theÐ $ t Ðpunishment.€€Further,€a€prosecutor€should€not€intentionally€avoid€pursuit€of€evidenceÐ  ` Ðmerely€because€the€prosecutor€believes€it€will€damage€the€prosecutorððs€case€or€aid€theÐ ü L  Ðaccused.Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌÌTenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€8,€EC€7„13.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àIn€short,€public€prosecutors€hold€a€unique€office€in€our€criminal€justice€system.€€Contrary€toÐ „Ô  Ðthe€Stateððs€contention€on€appeal,€prosecutors€are€expected€to€be€impartial€in€the€sense€that€they€mustÐ pÀ Ðseek€the€truth€and€not€merely€obtain€convictions.€€They€are€also€to€be€impartial€in€the€sense€thatÐ \¬ Ðcharging€decisions€should€be€based€upon€the€evidence,€without€discrimination€or€bias€for€or€againstÐ H˜ Ðany€groups€or€individuals.€€€Yet,€at€the€same€time,€they€are€expected€to€prosecute€criminal€offensesÐ 4„ Ðwith€zeal€and€vigor€within€the€bounds€of€the€law€and€professional€conduct.€€òòSeeóó€òòBergeróó,€295€U.S.€atÐ  p Ð88,€55€S.€Ct.€at€633òòóó.Ð  \ ÐÌÌà@§§!ìàòòò òPrivate€Prosecutorsó óóóˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àUnder€English€common€law,€the€criminal€justice€system€required€the€victim€of€a€criminalÐ ¨ø Ðoffense,€or€the€victimððs€family,€to€initiate€and€pursue€criminal€proceedings.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Petersonóó,Ð ”ä Ð218€N.W.2d€367,€369€(Wis.€1928).€€Although€the€development€and€role€of€the€public€prosecutor€inÐ €Ð Ðthe€United€States€over€the€past€several€centuries€has€largely€supplanted€the€English€common€law€inÐ l¼ Ðthis€regard,€many€jurisdictions€still€allow€a€private€attorney€to€be€retained€or€appointed€to€assist€inÐ X ¨ Ðthe€prosecution€of€a€criminal€case.€€òòSeeóó€John€D.€Bessler,€òòThe€Public€Interest€and€theÐ D!” ÐUnconstitutionality€of€Private€Prosecutorsóó,€47€Ark.€L.€Rev.€511,€515€(1994).Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àNumerous€courts€and€commentators€have€recognized,€however,€that€the€use€of€a€privateÐ $X" Ðattorney€in€the€prosecution€of€a€criminal€case€may€present€ethical€dilemmas,€including€conflicts€ofÐ ô$D # Ðinterest.€€Bessler,€47€Ark.€L.€Rev.€at€548„49€(and€cases€cited€therein).€€The€private€attorney€mustÐ à%0!$ Ðcomply€with€the€standards€and€ethical€responsibilities€for€a€public€prosecutor€ð!ð€to€not€merely€seekÐ Ì&"% Ðconvictions€but€also€to€pursue€justice.€€òòSeeóó€òòYoung€v.€United€States€ex€rel.€Vuitton€Et€Fils€S.A.óó,€481Ð ¸'#& ÐU.S.€787,€107€S.€Ct.€2124,€95€L.€Ed.€2d€740€(1987).€€At€the€same€time,€however,€the€privateÐ ¤(ô#' Ðâ âattorneyððs€ethical€duty€ð ðboth€to€client€and€to€the€legal€system,€is€to€represent€the€client€zealouslyÐ )à$( Ðwithin€the€bounds€of€the€law,€which€include€Disciplinary€Rules€and€enforceable€professionalÐ ° Ðregulations.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€8,€EC€7„1.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àIn€Tennessee,€there€are€two€statutes€pertaining€to€the€prosecutorððs€use€of€additional€counsel.€Ð tÄ ÐOne,€which€the€parties€agree€is€not€applicable€in€this€case,€permits€the€victim€of€a€crime€or€theÐ `° Ðvictimððs€family€to€retain€an€attorney€to€assist€in€the€trial€of€a€criminal€case€under€the€supervision€ofÐ L œ Ðthe€District€Attorney€General.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€8„7„401€(Supp.€1999).€€The€second,€which€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðparties€contend€is€applicable€here,€provides€for€the€employment€of€additional€counsel:Ð $ t Ðò òÌà8  àEmployment€of€additional€counsel.ð"ð€ó óIn€all€cases€where€the€interest€of€the€stateÐ ü L  Ðrequires,€in€the€judgment€of€the€governor€and€attorney€general€and€reporter,Ð ì <  Ðadditional€counsel€to€the€attorney€general€and€reporter€or€district€attorney€general,€theÐ Ø(  Ðgovernor€shall€employ€such€counsel,€who€shall€be€paid€such€compensation€forÐ Ä  Ðservices€as€the€governor,€secretary€of€state,€and€attorney€general€and€reporter€mayÐ °  Ðdeem€just,€the€same€to€be€paid€out€of€any€money€in€the€treasury€not€otherwiseÐ œì  Ðappropriated,€upon€the€certificate€of€such€officers€certifying€the€amount€to€theÐ ˆØ  Ðcommissioner€of€finance€and€administration.ÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€8„6„106€(1993).Ð 8ˆ ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€statutory€provisions€in€Tennessee,€similar€to€the€laws€in€other€jurisdictions,Ð ` Ðpurport€to€address€the€potential€conflicts€by€requiring€that€the€private€attorney€work€under€theÐ üL Ðsupervision€of€the€District€Attorney€or€be€compensated€by€the€state,€they€do€not€foreclose€the€riskÐ è8 Ðthat€a€conflict€of€interest,€or€appearance€of€such€a€conflict,€may€exist€under€the€circumstances€of€aÐ Ô$ Ðparticular€case.€€For€example,€there€is€a€conflict€of€interest€whenever€an€attorney€is€retained€to€assistÐ À Ðthe€prosecution€and€acquires€a€direct€financial€interest€in€the€proceeding.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Eldridgeóó,€951Ð ¬ü ÐS.W.2d€775,€781€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997)€(attorney€assisted€prosecution€but€also€represented€victimÐ ˜è Ðin€a€corresponding€civil€action).òòóó€€Moreover,€an€actual€conflict€or€an€apparent€conflict€may€existÐ „Ô Ðanytime€a€lawyer€cannot€exercise€his€or€her€independent€professional€judgment€free€ofÐ pÀ Ðð ðcompromising€influences€and€loyalties.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòTateóó,€925€S.W.2d€at€534€(district€attorney€formerlyÐ \ ¬ Ðserved€as€judge€presiding€over€defendantððs€case);€Tenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€8,€EC€5„1.׃ @×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×òòóó€€Accordingly,€a€courtÐ H!˜ Ðmust€review€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€each€case€with€these€standards€in€mind.Ð 4"„  Ðâ âÐ  #p! Ðà  àIn€this€case,€Parrishððs€involvement€began€without€any€formal€appointment€by€the€GovernorÐ ° Ðâ âand€no€oath€of€office,€and€it€continued€in€this€manner€for€eight€months€from€December€of€1995€toÐ œì ÐJuly€1996.€€Parrish€was€compensated€for€his€services€by€a€private,€special€interest€group€that€he€billedÐ ˆØ Ðeach€month.€€During€this€time,€Parrish€spearheaded€a€comprehensive€investigation€with€a€ð ðstaffðð€thatÐ tÄ Ðincluded€two€assistant€district€attorneys€and€three€investigators.€€There€was€no€specific€agreementÐ `° Ðor€arrangement€as€to€Parrishððs€role,€the€extent€of€his€participation,€or€the€extent€of€District€AttorneyÐ L œ ÐGeneral€Pierottiððs€supervision€ð!ð€for€all€practical€purposes,€there€appeared€to€be€little€supervision€orÐ 8 ˆ Ðcontrol€by€Pierotti.Ð $ t Ѐ€Ð  ` Ðà  àIn€July€of€1996,€a€civil€nuisance€suit€seeking€injunctive€relief€was€filed€by€Parrish€and€theÐ ü L  ÐDistrict€Attorney€Generalððs€office€against€the€defendants€based€on€the€evidence€from€ParrishððsÐ è 8  Ðinvestigation.€€Although€General€Pierotti€purportedly€appointed€Parrish€as€a€special€prosecutor€onÐ Ô$  Ðthe€same€day€the€suit€was€filed,€there€was€(and€is)€no€constitutional€or€statutory€authority€for€suchÐ À  Ðan€appointment€to€be€made.€€Moreover,€although€Parrish€was€later€appointed€as€additional€counselÐ ¬ü  Ðby€the€Governor,€there€was€(and€is)€no€legal€authority€allowing€Parrish€to€be€compensated€on€anÐ ˜è  Ðhourly€basis€by€a€private,€special€interest€group.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€8„6„106€(1993)€(counselÐ „Ô  Ðmay€be€compensated€from€the€state€treasury).€€Indeed,€the€State€now€concedes€that€ParrishððsÐ pÀ Ðappointment€and€participation€was€ð ðproblematicðð€€inasmuch€as€there€was€no€statutory€authority€forÐ \¬ Ðit€in€this€manner.€€€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€we€agree€with€the€lower€courts€that€Parrish€had€an€actual€conflict€of€interestÐ  p Ðunder€the€circumstances€of€this€case.€€He€was€privately€compensated€by€a€special€interest€group€andÐ  \ Ðthus€owed€a€duty€of€loyalty€to€that€group;€at€the€same€time,€he€was€serving€in€the€role€of€publicÐ øH Ðprosecutor€and€owed€the€duty€of€loyalty€attendant€to€that€office.€Moreover,€because€Parrish€wasÐ ä4 Ðcompensated€on€an€hourly€basis,€the€reality€is€that€he€acquired€a€direct€financial€interest€in€theÐ Ð  Ðduration€and€scope€of€the€ongoing€prosecution.€€In€short,€the€dual€role€was€such€that€Parrish€couldÐ ¼  Ðnot€exercise€his€independent€professional€judgment€free€of€ð ðcompromising€influences€and€loyalties.ðð€Ð ¨ø ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€8,€EC€5„1.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€State€contends€that€there€was€no€conflict€of€interest€because€Parrish€and€the€prosecutionÐ l¼ Ðhad€the€same€interest€ð!ð€eradicating€sexually„oriented€businesses.€€The€prosecutorððs€discretion€aboutÐ X ¨ Ðwhom€to€prosecute€and€to€what€extent€they€should€be€prosecuted,€however,€is€vast€and€to€a€largeÐ D!” Ðdegree,€not€subject€to€meaningful€review.€€òòSeeóó€òòRamseyóó,€998€S.W.2d€at€209;€€òòState€v.€Superior€Oil,Ð 0"€  ÐInc.óó,€875€S.W.2d€658,€660€(Tenn.€1994)€(ð ðprosecutorial€discretion€in€the€charging€process€is€veryÐ #l! Ðbroadðð).€òòóó€Moreover,€as€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€recognized,€the€prosecutorððs€discretionÐ $X" Ðgoes€beyond€initial€charging€decisions:€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà8  àA€prosecutor€exercises€considerable€discretion€in€matters€such€as€the€determinationÐ Ì&"% Ðof€which€persons€should€be€targets€of€investigation,€what€methods€of€investigationÐ ¸'#& Ðshould€be€used,€what€information€will€be€sought€as€evidence,€which€persons€shouldÐ ¤(ô#' Ðbe€charged€with€what€offenses,€which€persons€should€be€utilized€as€witnesses,Ð )à$( Ðâ âwhether€to€enter€into€plea€bargains€and€the€terms€on€which€they€will€be€established,Ð |*Ì%) Ðand€whether€any€individuals€should€be€granted€immunity.€€These€decisions,€criticalÐ ° Ðto€the€conduct€of€a€prosecution,€are€all€made€outside€the€supervision€of€a€court.МìÐ Ð  Ðâ âÌòòÌYoungóó,€481€U.S.€at€807,€107€S.€Ct.€at€2137.€€òòóóIn€sum,€the€Stateððs€argument€misses€the€point€that€theÐ `° Ðfoundation€for€the€exercise€of€the€vast€prosecutorial€discretion€is€freedom€from€conflict€of€interestÐ L œ Ðand€fidelity€to€the€public€interest.€€òòóóÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àFinally,€we€agree€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€disqualifying€the€DistrictÐ  ` ÐAttorney€Generalððs€staff€based€on€the€appearance€of€impropriety€created€by€Parrishððs€conflict€ofÐ ü L  Ðinterest.€€As€one€commentator€has€said:Ð è 8  ÐÌà8  àTo€ensure€and€maintain€public€confidence€in€the€integrity€of€the€government,€publicÐ À  Ðofficials,€including€prosecutors,€must€act€impartially€and€responsibly.€€GovernmentÐ ¬ü  Ðofficials€must€be€held€to€high€ethical€standards€to€make€certain€their€activities€areÐ ˜è  Ðconducted€in€the€publicððs€interest.€€Furthermore,€ððgovernments€have€a€responsibilityÐ „Ô  Ðto€the€public€to€avoid€even€the€appearance€of€impropriety€and€to€act€to€reduce€theÐ pÀ Ðopportunities€and€incentives€for€unethical€behavior€by€their€officials€and€employees.ðð€Ð \¬ ÐThis€is€true€of€the€prosecuting€attorney€because€ððan€appearance€of€impropriety€on€theÐ H˜ Ðpart€of€a€government€attorney€will€inevitably€harm€not€only€the€individual€attorney,Ð 4„ Ðbut€also€the€entire€system€of€government€that€allows€such€improprieties€to€takeÐ  p Ðplace.ððÐ \Ð Ð  ÐÌÌRoberta€K.€Flowers,€òòWhat€You€See€Is€What€You€Get:€Applying€the€Appearance€of€ImproprietyÐ Ð  ÐStandard€to€Prosecutorsóó,€63€Mo.€L.€Rev.€60,€68€(1998)€(citations€omitted).Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àContrary€to€the€Stateððs€argument,€the€record€supports€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€ParrishÐ ”ä Ðplayed€a€substantial€role€in€the€prosecution€and€that€there€was€ð ða€blurring€between€an€actual€conflictÐ €Ð Ðof€interest€and€the€appearance€of€impropriety€arising€in€conflicts€of€interest.ðð€€Despite€ParrishððsÐ l¼ Ðextensive€contact€with€the€office€of€the€District€Attorney€General,€including€daily€workingÐ X ¨ Ðinvolvement€with€two€assistant€district€attorneys€and€several€investigators,€there€were€no€guidelinesÐ D!” Ðas€to€Parrishððs€duties€and€no€efforts€to€screen€Parrish€from€other€members€of€the€District€AttorneyÐ 0"€  ÐGeneralððs€office.€€Both€District€Attorney€General€Pierotti€and€his€successor,€District€AttorneyÐ #l! ÐGeneral€Gibbons,€knew€that€Parrish€was€being€compensated€by€a€private,€special€interest€group.€Ð $X" ÐMoreover,€the€trial€court€found€that€on€one€occasion,€Pierotti,€Gibbons,€and€Parrish€attended€a€fund„Ð ô$D # Ðraiser€which€ð ðstressed€the€necessity€to€continue€on€with€the€prosecution€of€criminal€activity€in€toplessÐ à%0!$ Ðclubs€and€the€need€for€continued€donations€to€pursue€these€goals.ððÐ Ì&"% ÐÌà  àWe€further€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Parrishððs€extensive€involvement€had€aÐ ¤(ô#' Ðsubstantial€impact€on€the€prosecution.€€Although€the€State€argues€that€the€investigation€into€sexually„Ð )à$( Ðoriented€businesses€preceded€Parrishððs€involvement,€it€was€the€investigation€led€by€Parrish€thatÐ |*Ì%) Ðresulted€in€the€filing€of€a€civil€nuisance€suit€seeking€injunctive€relief.€€Moreover,€when€DistrictÐ h+¸&* ÐAttorney€Gibbons€took€office,€he€not€only€was€aware€of€Parrishððs€investigation€but€also€made€theÐ ° Ðdecision€to€seek€criminal€indictments€against€the€defendants.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€thatÐ œì ÐParrishððs€conflict€of€interest€tainted€the€entire€prosecution€and€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€itsÐ ˆØ Ðdiscretion€in€disqualifying€Parrish€and€the€District€Attorney€General€and€his€office.Ð tÄ ÐÌà@ttìàòòò òDISMISSAL€OF€INDICTMENTó óóóˆÐ L œ ÐÌò òó óà  àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€erred€in€reinstating€the€indictmentsÐ $ t Ðthat€had€been€dismissed€by€the€trial€court.€€The€State€maintains€that€neither€dismissal€of€theÐ  ` Ðindictment€nor€suppression€of€the€evidence€ð!ð€a€remedy€suggested€by€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ ü L  Ðð!ð€is€appropriate€under€the€facts€of€this€case.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àWe€initially€observe€that€dismissal€of€an€otherwise€valid€indictment€returned€by€a€grand€juryÐ À  Ðis€a€little„used€remedy€for€prosecutorial€misconduct.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Williamsóó,€504€U.S.€36,Ð ¬ü  Ð54,€112€S.€Ct.€1735,€1746,€118€L.€Ed.€2d€352€(1992).€€It€may€be€appropriate,€however,€whereÐ ˜è  Ðprosecutorial€misconduct€denies€a€defendant€the€constitutional€right€to€due€process.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnitedÐ „Ô  ÐStates€v.€Carrascoóó,€786€F.2d€1452,€1455€(9th€Cir.€1986);€òòPeople€v.€Torresóó,€613€N.E.2d€338,€340€(Ill.Ð pÀ ÐApp.€1993).€€Moreover,€dismissal€of€an€indictment€may€be€appropriate€under€a€courtððs€generalÐ \¬ Ðsupervisory€authority€where€prosecutorial€misconduct,€while€short€of€constitutional€error,€hasÐ H˜ Ðprejudiced€a€defendant€or€affected€the€charging€decision€by€the€grand€jury.€€òòBank€of€Nova€Scotia€v.Ð 4„ ÐUnited€Statesóó,€487€U.S.€250,€108€S.€Ct.€2369,€101€L.€Ed.€2d€228€(1988).Ð  p ÐÌà  àA€citizen€has€the€right€to€due€process€of€law€under€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€to€the€UnitedÐ øH ÐStates€Constitution€and€under€the€ð ðlaw€of€the€landðð€provision€of€article€I,€section€8€of€the€TennesseeÐ ä4 ÐConstitution.€€As€we€have€often€observed,€ð ðUnited€States€Supreme€Court€interpretations€of€the€dueÐ Ð  Ðprocess€clauses€of€the€United€States€Constitution€only€establish€a€minimum€level€of€protection,€andÐ ¼  Ðthis€Court,€as€final€arbiter€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€is€always€free€to€expand€the€minimum€levelÐ ¨ø Ðof€protection€mandated€by€the€federal€constitution.ðð€€òòBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845€S.W.2d€204,€207€(Tenn.Ð ”ä Ð1992);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòCity€of€White€House€v.€Whitleyóó,€979€S.W.2d€262,€268€(Tenn.€1998)€(ð ðAlthough€weÐ €Ð Ðmay€not€restrict€the€protections€afforded€by€the€federal€constitution,€we€may€interpret€the€TennesseeÐ l¼ ÐConstitution€to€impose€higher€standards€and€stronger€protectionsðð).Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àWe€have€recognized€on€several€occasions€that€ð ðdue€process€.€.€.€calls€for€such€protections€asÐ 0"€  Ðthe€particular€situation€demands.ðð€€òòWilson€v.€Wilsonóó,€984€S.W.2d€898,€902€(Tenn.€1998);€òòPhillipsÐ #l! Ðv.€State€Bd.€of€Regentsóó,€863€S.W.2d€45,€50€(Tenn.€1993).€In€making€this€determination,€a€court€mustÐ $X" Ðconsider€three€factors:Ð ô$D # ÐÌà8  à(1)€the€private€interest€at€stake;€(2)€the€risk€of€erroneous€deprivation€of€the€interestÐ Ì&"% Ðthrough€the€procedures€used€and€the€probable€value,€if€any,€of€additional€or€substituteÐ ¸'#& Ðprocedural€safeguards;€and€finally€(3)€the€governmentððs€interest,€including€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfunction€involved€and€the€fiscal€and€administrative€burdens€that€the€additional€orÐ )à$( Ðsubstitute€procedural€requirement€would€entail.òòÐ|*Ì%)Ð Ð  ÐÐ h+¸&* ÐWilsonóó,€984€S.W.2d€at€902.Ð ° ÐÌà  àIn€òòWilsonóó,€we€held€that€due€process€was€not€violated€when€a€private€attorney€who€representsÐ ˆØ Ðthe€beneficiary€of€a€court€order€in€a€civil€case€prosecutes€a€criminal€contempt€action€for€a€violationÐ tÄ Ðof€that€order.€€In€analyzing€the€three€relevant€factors,€we€noted€that€the€defendant€has€a€libertyÐ `° Ðinterest€at€stake€in€a€contempt€action€but€that€the€risk€of€deprivation€of€that€interest€was€minimalÐ L œ Ðbecause€it€is€the€trial€court€ð!ð€and€not€the€private€attorney€ð!ð€who€determines€whether€a€contemptÐ 8 ˆ Ðaction€will€proceed.€€Moreover,€the€rule€governing€contempt€actions,€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€42(b),Ð $ t Ðprovides€for€extensive€judicial€oversight€and€protections€that€minimize€the€risks€associated€with€theÐ  ` Ðinvolvement€of€private€counsel.€€Finally,€we€noted€that€fiscal€and€administrative€burdens€would€beÐ ü L  Ðgreat€if€contempt€actions€arising€out€of€court€orders€in€civil€cases€could€be€prosecuted€only€by€theÐ è 8  ÐDistrict€Attorney€General.€€òòWilsonóó,€984€S.W.2d€at€903.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àThe€circumstances€of€this€case€warrant€the€opposite€result.€€The€defendantsðð€liberty€interestsÐ ¬ü  Ðare€obviously€significant,€as€they€have€been€charged€with€multiple€felony€offenses.€€We€also€believe,Ð ˜è  Ðfor€the€reasons€already€described,€that€the€risk€of€erroneous€deprivation€of€these€interests,€i.e.,Ð „Ô  Ðprejudice€to€the€defendants,€stemming€from€the€participation€of€a€private€attorney€compensated€byÐ pÀ Ða€special€interest€group,€is€also€substantial.€€In€short,€the€participation€of€a€privately€fundedÐ \¬ Ðprosecutor€rendered€the€proceedings€fundamentally€unfair.€€Finally,€unlike€òòWilsonóó,€the€fiscal€andÐ H˜ Ðadministrative€burdens€are€minimal€because€the€District€Attorney€General€and€his€staff€are€alreadyÐ 4„ Ðcharged€with€the€responsibility€of€investigating€and€prosecuting€the€offenses€in€question.€€Indeed,Ð  p Ðtwo€assistant€district€attorneys€were€directly€involved€in€the€investigation€of€these€cases€along€withÐ  \ ÐParrish.€€Given€these€factors,€we€agree€with€the€lower€courts€that€the€defendants€were€denied€theirÐ øH Ðright€to€due€process.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àAlthough€dismissal€of€an€indictment€is€not€a€usual€remedy,€we€conclude€that€dismissal€of€theÐ ¼  Ðindictment€is€appropriate€in€this€case.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€òòóó€€In€òòGill€v.€Stateóó,€134€Tenn.€591,€597€(1915),€for€example,€weÐ ¨ø Ðheld€that€dismissal€of€an€indictment€would€have€been€the€appropriate€course€of€action€where€aÐ ”ä Ðprosecutor€presented€charges€to€a€grand€jury€while€at€the€same€time€representing€the€victimððs€familyÐ €Ð Ðin€a€corresponding€civil€action.€€Similarly,€another€court€has€observed€that€òòóóð ða€dismissal€may€.€.€.Ð l¼ Ðpreserve€fairness€to€the€individual€defendant,€.€.€.€deter€prosecutorial€misconduct,€or€.€.€.€protectÐ X ¨ Ðjudicial€integrity.ðð€€òòCarrascoóó,€786€F.2d€at€1455.€€Here,€the€private€attorneyððs€conflict€of€interestÐ D!” Ðtainted€the€entire€prosecution€of€the€case€well€before€the€charges€were€presented€to€the€grand€jury.€Ð 0"€  ÐAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€proceedings€were€inherently€improper€€and€that€dismissal€of€theÐ #l! Ðindictments€is€the€appropriate€remedy€to€redress€the€constitutional€error.€Ð $X" ÐÌà@FF%ìàò òòòCONCLUSIONóóˆÐ à%0!$ ÐÐ Ì&"% Ðà  àó óWe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€disqualifying€the€DistrictÐ ° ÐAttorney€Generalððs€office€and€that€the€indictments€were€properly€dismissed€based€on€the€denial€ofÐ œì Ðthe€defendantsðð€right€to€due€process€under€article€I,€section€8€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€CostsÐ ˆØ Ðof€the€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€State€of€Tennessee.Ð tÄ ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àE.€RILEY€ANDERSON,€CHIEF€JUSTICE€Ð $ t ÐÌ