Myers v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Young v. State

    297 Md. 286 (Md. 1983)   Cited 21 times
    Holding “that mere appearance of impropriety is not of itself sufficient to warrant disqualification of entire State's Attorney's office”

    To the same effect, see Mattress v. State, 564 S.W.2d 678 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1977) and Myers v. State, 459 S.W.2d 859 (Tex.Crim. App. 1970). See also generally Annot., 31 A.L.R.3d 953 (1970 Supp. 1982).

  2. Com. v. Miller

    281 Pa. Super. 392 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1980)   Cited 21 times
    In Commonwealth v. Miller, 281 Pa.Super. 392, 422 A.2d 525 (1980), the court considered the conflict of interest problem created when a former public defender joins the district attorney's office and a defendant moves for disqualification of the entire office because a different member of the public defender's office previously represented a co-defendant.

    People v. Shinkle, 423 N.Y.S.2d 549, 73 A.D.2d 764 (1979);State v. Smith, 123 Ariz. 231, 599 P.2d 187 (1979); Pisa v. Commonwealth, ___ Mass. ___ , 393 N.E.2d 386 (1979); Mattress v. State, 564 S.W.2d 678 (Tenn.Cr.App. 1977); State v. Bell, 346 So.2d 1090 (La. 1977); Hannon v. State, 48 Ala. App. 613, 266 So.2d 825 (Ala. 1972); Dunn v. State, 264 So.2d 823 (Miss. 1972); Myers v. State, 459 S.W.2d 859 (Tex.Cr.App. 1970); State v. Brazile, 90 So.2d 789 (La. 1956). In addition to the representatives of the named parties, the District Attorney's Office of Philadelphia, and the Pennsylvania District Attorney's Association filed briefs amicus curiae.