Pursuant to a contract with the Office of the Georgia Capital Defender “Capital Defender”, Walt M. Britt acts as lead counsel for criminal defendant Donald Steven Sanders in a case in which the State is seeking the death penalty. Douglas A. Ramseur, an employee of the Capital Defender, is also counsel for Sanders. Prompted by funding concerns relating to capital cases in general and the potential for inadequate funding in their representation of Sanders in particular, Sanders’ attorneys served subpoenas for production of evidence regarding Georgia’s indigent capital defendant funding crisis on the Executive Director of the Georgia Public Defender Standards Council “Council”, various other Council executives, and the Director of the Capital Defender. The Council moved to quash the subpoenas, but the motion was denied in an order dated February 13, 2007. The funding concerns also prompted Sanders’ attorneys to file a motion challenging the constitutionality of “The Funding Scheme For Capital Indigent Defense Mandated By OCGA § 17-12-120 Through OCGA § 17-12-128,” and a “Motion for Payment of Adequate Compensation to Counsel.” However, because 1 Ramseur is an employee of the Capital Defender, 2 Britt’s compensation as a contracted attorney is controlled by the Capital Defender, 3 the trial court had subpoenaed the Capital Defender’s Executive Director and the Council’s Director as witnesses who would testify at any hearing on issues relating to the funding for indigent capital defense, and 4 the Council had moved to quash the subpoenas relating to the funding for indigent defense, Sanders’ attorneys argued that they had been placed in an adversarial position with respect to their employers the Council and the Capital Defender, and that this conflict of interest could adversely affect their representation of Sanders. In connection with this argument, at a February 6, 2007 motions hearing, Sanders’ attorneys informed the trial court that they would not proceed with any motions in Sanders’ case until conflict free counsel were appointed and the counsel advised Sanders of whether the conflict with his current attorneys could be waived. Even after the trial court expressly ordered Sanders’ attorneys to proceed with the motions hearing, they still refused to do so. Accordingly, the trial court held Britt and Ramseur in direct criminal contempt and ordered each of them to serve twenty-four hours in jail and pay a $500.00 fine.
In Case No. S07A1023, the Council appeals from the denial of its motion to quash. In Case Nos. S07A0912 and S07A1024, Britt and Ramseur appeal from the trial court’s order holding them in contempt. For the reasons that follow, we reverse in Case No. S07A1023 and affirm in Case Nos. S07A0912 and S07A1024.
