professional career, may use connections and influence to obtain a favorable result for the defendant. • The public may also infer that the prosecutor will not jeopardize his or her “law and order” reputation by using vigorous defense tactics. • The public may conclude that a prosecutor’s vigorous defense of an accused will result in decreased support from law enforcement in future cases. A prosecutor who alienates the law enforcement agencies upon which he or she depends, compromises his or her prosecutorial responsibilities. • Regardless of counsel’s diligence, the inherent conflicts of the situation expose counsel to charges that the representation was not entirely faithful. Brown, 853 P.2d at 857-59 (internal citations omitted). Accord State v. White (Tenn. 2003), 114 S.W.3d 469 (<HOLDING>); State v. Ross (Mo. 1992), 829 S.W.2d 948
holding that even a potential conflict can justify disqualification holding that the defendant was deprived of his sixth amendment right to counsel where appointed counsels representation presented a conflict of interest holding the existence of a possible conflict required remand for a determination of whether an actual conflict of interest existed and holding a new trial would be required if an actual conflict existed holding that counsels dual roles as prosecutor and defense counsel in the same county were inherently antagonistic and thus created an actual conflict of interest that required disqualification holding that defense counsels performance was adversely affected by an actual conflict of interest if a specific and seemingly valid or genuine alternative strategy or tactic was available to defense counsel but it was inherently in conflict with his duties to others 