# Commonwealth v. King > Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · November 26, 2012 · 618 Pa. 405 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4966532 ## Case - **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Carolyn Ann KING - **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania - **Decided:** November 26, 2012 - **Citations:** 618 Pa. 405; 57 A.3d 607; 2012 Pa. LEXIS 2744 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Eakin - **Judges:** Baer, Castille, Eakin, McCaffery, Melvin, Saylor, Todd - **Cited by:** 239 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4966532 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - stating that although testimony at trial indicated the appellant’s history of abuse led the appellant to fear rejection by her co-defendant, it did not indicate it led her to fear physical harm by the co-defendant, so there was therefore no threat of force which would implicat… - observing that, in assessing whether the conflict of interest resulted in a deprivation of the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment, “the [United States Supreme] Court’s concern centers primarily on the potential for an attorney to alter his trial strategy due to extrins… - noting that “under this Court’s *739 prevailing precedent, [] a [defense of diminished capacity] to first-degree murder is only available to defendants who admit that they killed the victim, but contest the degree of guilty based on an inability, at the time of the offense, to… - noting “we have seen more than enough instances of deficient stewardship to raise very serious questions concerning the presumption[]” of effective capital defense representation ## Opinion text Justice EAKIN, concurring. I join Chief Justice Castille’s Concurring Opinion, and its joinder of the Majority Opinion. If fee caps may create a “conflict of interest,” then, a fortiori, pro bono representation creates a conflict — if too little payment can do so, no payment at all would almost certainly do so. Of course, the truth is that countless attorneys handle countless legal matters for people with little or no compensation. This does not mean evidence “that counsel prioritized his own financial interests above the interests of his client and, as a result, rendered deficient stewardship prejudicing the defense” would not allow for a claim of ineffectiveness. Concurring Op., at 633-34 (Saylor, J., concurring). Such would be an admission of ineffectiveness, contrary to “prevailing professional norms,” and counsel’s reasoning for his ineffectiveness would be inconsequential to the determination. See id. at 617-18 (citing Bobby v. Van Hook, 558 U.S. 4 , 130 S.Ct. 13 , 175 L.Ed.2d 255 (2009)). However, it would not be based on a conflict of interest. The love of money may be the root of all evil and some ineffectiveness, but by itself, it does not create a legal conflict of interest. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4966532. Public record. Not legal advice.