Prosecutor claims defense attorney in murder case has conflict of interest

By Emily Reed, Sonia Vazquez – July 3, 2024
Court | Daily Stories | Murders | Shootings | Suspects | Victims |

In response to evidentiary motions filed by the defense in the murder case, the prosecution argued before District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Robert Okun during a July 2 hearing that the defense attorney had a conflict of interest with a prosecution witness.

Tyree Irving, 27, has been charged with first-degree murder, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, unlawful possession of a firearm and two counts of obstructing justice for his alleged involvement in the killing of Davane Williams, 22, in the Jan. 15, 2019, incident in the 1200 block of North Capitol Street, NW.

According to court documents, a witness at the scene identified the person as Irving. The witness told police the suspect approached Williams and an unknown person. The suspect allegedly shook the unknown person’s hand before moving toward Williams, brandishing a gun and shooting him multiple times. Williams was found at the scene with multiple gunshot wounds and was pronounced dead.

Before the July 2 hearing, Irving’s Public Defender Services (PDS) attorney, Madalyn Harvey, filed a motion seeking information from the prosecution about a witness it plans to call to the trial.

The prosecutor’s office explained that the witness is currently in prison after being convicted of an unrelated murder.

Prosecutors opposed the motion, arguing that the District of Columbia Bar Association had barred Harvey from representing Irving due to a conflict of interest because Harvey and the witness’s attorney worked at PDS at the same time.

Releasing the witness information would unfairly favor the defense because Harvey would have access to additional witness files through the PDS office, prosecutors argued.

Claire Roth, special counsel to the director of ethical conflicts and the CJA panel at PDS, said the provision allows Harvey to continue to represent her interests with Irving’s informed consent.

“Mr. Irving has the constitutional right to choose his own attorney,” she argued.

The prosecution responded that even if Irving had consented, it would still unfairly undermine the witness’s credibility because the defense “will be examining, examining and examining” the witness, whose “credibility is central to this case.”

Irving was placed under oath and agreed that he wanted Harvey to continue to represent him. He told Judge Okun that he knew PDS represented the witness and his current PDS attorneys could not access the witness’s confidential information during cross-examination.

During the May 24 hearing, Harvey characterized the witness as a “collaborator” who wants to “help himself.” She also claimed he was biased and desperate to curry favor.

Judge Okun did not issue a formal ruling on the motion and said he would issue a written order within the next week.

The return of events is scheduled for July 19.

Follow this case