State of Yap vs. Steven Elap

STATE COURT OF YAP

IN THE

TRIAL DIVISION

Cite as State of Yap v. Elap, (Yap St. 1994)

[page 1]

THE STATE OF YAP ,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

STEVEN ELAB,

Defendant(s),

Case No. CR. 1994-212

RULING ON MOTION

On September 29, 1994 the State moved this Court to have the Public Defender removed from this case arid one other. The reasons for the motion were that foxrc juveniles were charged in one information, this defendant in another, all relating to the same incident. The Public Defender, Marvin Hamilton, is counsel of record for all cases. The State thus alleged conflict of interest citing the Yap State Constitution, several U.S. Cases and the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MPRC), Rule 1.7, as adopted by the State of Yap. For the following reasons the State's motion to have tie Public Defender removed from the case is hereby denied.

The State points out that an attorney should not take cases where a conflict of interest is involved. If a conflict arises at a time counsel should promptly seek withdrawal. The Public Defender does not dispute this fact, only that a conflict has not emerged.

We find that although this case does have the potential for serious conflicts of interest to arise, circumstances have not occurred to make withdrawal necessary at this time. The three

[page 2]

juveniles implicating others have agreeably settled and the two left, defendant Elab and the juvenile Fithing, have implicated no one. Mr. Hamilton is no longer counsel of record for those settled so that the fact that one of those three could become a witness for the Prosecution is not relevant. The fact that there may have been conflicts during the settlement negotiation of those implicating some of the others is not at issue here. The remaining alleged offenders have not implicated each other as to create a conflict of interest.

MOTION DENIED

Dated: Nov. 14, 1994

/s/

Justice -Yap State

Filed: 11/14/94

/s/

Clerk of Courts


	STATE COURT OF YAP IN THE TRIAL DIVISION *Cite as State of Yap v. Elap, (Yap St. 1994)* [page 1] THE STATE OF YAP , Plaintiff(s), vs. STEVEN ELAB, Defendant(s), Case No. CR. 1994-212 RULING ON MOTION On September 29, 1994 the State moved this Court to have the Public Defender removed from this case arid one other. The reasons for the motion were that foxrc juveniles were charged in one information, this defendant in another, all relating to the same incident. The Public Defender, Marvin Hamilton, is counsel of record for all cases. The State thus alleged conflict of interest citing the Yap State Constitution, several U.S. Cases and the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MPRC), Rule 1.7, as adopted by the State of Yap. For the following reasons the State's motion to have tie Public Defender removed from the case is hereby denied. The State points out that an attorney should not take cases where a conflict of interest is involved. If a conflict arises at a time counsel should promptly seek withdrawal. The Public Defender does not dispute this fact, only that a conflict has not emerged. We find that although this case does have the potential for serious conflicts of interest to arise, circumstances have not occurred to make withdrawal necessary at this time. The three [page 2] juveniles implicating others have agreeably settled and the two left, defendant Elab and the juvenile Fithing, have implicated no one. Mr. Hamilton is no longer counsel of record for those settled so that the fact that one of those three could become a witness for the Prosecution is not relevant. The fact that there may have been conflicts during the settlement negotiation of those implicating some of the others is not at issue here. The remaining alleged offenders have not implicated each other as to create a conflict of interest. MOTION DENIED Dated: Nov. 14, 1994 /s/ Justice -Yap State Filed: 11/14/94 /s/ Clerk of Courts