these jurisdictions hold that a per se rule is required to preserve public confidence in the criminal justice system by eliminating any appearance of impropriety. See Stevens, 642 P.2d at 41 (citing Shinkle, 51 N.Y.2d at 420-21, 434 N.Y.S.2d at 920, 415 N.E.2d at 910). We hold that the employment of a criminal defendant’s former counsel in a Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office does not per se disqualify the entire office from handling the prosecution of the defendant’s case in a related matter. Instead, whether the apparent conflict of interest created when a criminal defendant’s former counsel joins a Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office justifies the disqualification of other members of the office is a matter com h Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 811, 111 S.Ct. 45, 112 L.Ed.2d 22 (1990) (<HOLDING>). Although the decision to disqualify an entire
holding that defendants right to due process was not violated by the employment of his former counsel in the us attorneys office where the former counsel recused himself and was screened from the prosecution of defendants case recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel holding that defendants have a right to counsel in criminal proceedings holding that the appropriate vehicle for claims alleging that defense counsel violated a defendants right to testify is a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel holding that the defendants prior conviction was not obtained in violation of his right to counsel because he had the opportunity for appointed counsel at public expense