State of Arizona ex rel. Rachel H. Mitchell v. Hon. David J. Palmer/Tamira Marie Durand2 min read

Arizona Supreme Court: State of Arizona ex rel. Rachel H. Mitchell v. Hon. David J. Palmer/Tamira Marie Durand     Case No. CR-21-0397-PR     Filed April 11, 2024

ISSUES:

1. Whether a prosecutor’s office should be disqualified when an employee is a victim in its criminal case.
2. How to balance a defendant’s due process rights with a victim’s constitutional rights when the victim is an employee of the prosecutor’s office.
3. The application of the Gomez factors in deciding whether to disqualify a prosecutor’s office.

DECISION:

1. The court did not adopt a bright-line rule requiring disqualification but emphasized the need for a case-by-case analysis using the Gomez factors, and provides a framework for doing so.
2. When a defendant’s due process right to a fair trial directly conflicts with a victim’s state constitutional rights, the due process right prevails.
3. Trial courts must consider the Gomez factors when ruling on a motion to disqualify a prosecutor’s office, especially in cases involving potential conflicts of interest.

Synopsis:
The Arizona Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether to disqualify a prosecutor’s office when an employee is a victim in its criminal case. The court provided guidance on how trial courts should analyze cases involving the conflict of a defendants due process rights and a victims rights, emphasizing the need for a fact-intensive inquiry that considers various factors, including the victim-employee’s level of prominence and authority in the prosecutor’s office, the nature of the offense, and the potential for public suspicion. The court also outlined best practices for prosecutorial offices when they discover that an employee is a crime victim, including filing an ex parte motion to notify the trial court of the possible conflict.

Outcome of the Case:
The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order disqualifying the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO), vacated the court of appeals’ order, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.