Phillip Floyd, Appellant v. State of Arkansas, Appellee — Hart, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Hart's dissent argues that the circuit court abused its discretion by disqualifying Floyd's chosen counsel because the State presented no evidence of an actual conflict or serious potential conflict. She reasons that the former judge's issuance of the arrest warrant and acceptance of Floyd's not-guilty plea were limited, administrative acts that did not constitute substantial participation in the case. Hart would reverse and remand to permit Floyd to retain his counsel of choice. Justice Baker, dissenting, likewise would reverse because Crow did not substantially participate, while Chief Justice Brill, concurring, would affirm based additionally on the appearance of impropriety.