Dist.Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging his murder conviction on ground that trial court improperly disqualified defendant’s trial counsel, after finding that trial counsel had potential conflict of interest. While law recognizes presumption in favor of defendant’s counsel of choice, instant disqualification was not improper where: (1) according to state, witness heard from third-party that third-party and defendant were involved in subject shooting; (2) trial counsel had previously represented third-party in separate criminal matter and had held recent communication with witness; and (3) trial court could find that trial counsel’s simultaneous representation of third-party and defendant could create per se conflict of interest that could leave any conviction of defendant subject to reversal. Fact that third-party never testified did not require different result. Ct. further rejected defendant’s claim that: (1) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call certain witnesses, where record supported finding that said failure was matter of trial strategy; and (2) prosecution knowingly allowed witness to commit perjury, where defendant had failed to show that either police or state had coerced false testimony or that prosecutor had been aware of any perjury.
