State v. Porter

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE )
)
v. ) ID No. 2112006391
)
CHRISTOPHER PORTER, )
)
Defendant. )

Submitted: February 9, 2026
Decided: March 27, 2026

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Upon Remand

Andrew J. Vella, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Wilmington, Delaware, for the
State of Delaware.

Patrick J. Collins, Esquire, Collins Price Warner Woloshin, Wilmington, Delaware,
for Defendant Christopher Porter.

GREEN-STREETT, J.

1
I. Introduction

By order dated May 13, 2025 (the “Order”), the Delaware Supreme Court

remanded this matter to this Court for findings of fact and conclusions of law

regarding Christopher Porter’s allegation that (1) his defense counsel maintained a

conflict of interest; and (2) Mr. Porter never tendered informed consent to waive that

conflict. This Court, in accordance with the Order, held an evidentiary hearing, and

accepted post-hearing briefing from the parties. The Court’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law are set forth below.

II. Findings of Fact

A. Procedural History

On July 5, 2022, a Kent County grand jury indicted Mr. Porter on charges of

Murder in the First Degree and Robbery in the First Degree.1 After some delay at

the parties’ request, the Court scheduled trial for November 27, 2023.2 Two

attorneys from the Office of Defense Services (“ODS”) represented Mr. Porter –

J’Aime Rau, Esquire, and Joseph Halsey, Esquire.

At an office conference on November 22, 2023, the State informed the Court

it intended to call two “jailhouse informants” who had previously been represented

1
D.I. 4 (July 5, 2022).
2
D.I. 23 (June 22, 2023).

2
by the Office of Defense Services.3 The State relayed to the Court that Ms. Rau

previously represented one of the informants, potentially creating a conflict of

interest.4 At that time, the State had not secured either informants’ testimony.5 The

Court requested the parties gather more information on the potential conflict, with

the intent to address the matter at a future office conference.6

Before each day of the trial, the Court held an office conference with counsel

to address any outstanding issues and discuss scheduling.7 At the office conference

the first morning of trial, the State declared, “so Mr. Green – it was our understanding

that he had an open matter but he does not.”8 The State further indicated an attorney

from the Office of Conflicts Counsel would be present for Mr. Green’s testimony

“out of an abundance of caution.”9

3
App. to Def. Post Hr’g Br. at A160-61.
4
Id. at A161.
5
Id. (“So the timing is certainly regrettable, but, if they were brought in Monday, we will be
looking to obtain their cooperation and their testimony.”).
6
Id. at A164.
7
See generally D.I. 43 (Nov. 27, 2023); D.I. 45 (Nov. 28, 2023); D.I. 46 (Nov. 29, 2023); D.I. 48
(Nov. 30, 2023).
8
App. to Def. Post Hr’g Br. at A 184.
9
Id.

3
Again, at the office conference, Ms. Rau explained she recently received a

letter Mr. Green wrote to the State.10 Further, she discovered Mr. Green originally

provided a statement to police in June 2022.11 Ms. Rau believed she represented Mr.

Green in August 2023 on a robbery case that resolved via plea agreement to four

months’ incarceration.12 She stated:

I wasn’t aware at the time that he would – that he had
information because I did not have the original interview
at the time. That was done 15 months prior. It was just
when the letter was sent to me from the State I became
aware. But, at that time, he also didn’t have any open
matters with my office or with me personally.13

Ms. Rau further indicated that, while she thought she raised the issue with Mr.

Porter, she would like more time to consult with him about the potential conflict.14

Ms. Rau did not believe a conflict existed.15 The Court afforded Ms. Rau more time

to speak with her client, and the parties proceeded to the first day of trial.16

10
Id.
11
Id.
12
Id. at 185.
13
Id.
14
Id. at A186.
15
Id.
16
Id.

4
Later that day, the Court provided the parties with two cases – State v. Kent17

and State v. Sykes18 – cases involving potential conflicts of interest for witnesses

previously represented by the Office of Defense Services.19 The Court afforded

counsel time to review those cases with the intent to address any potential conflict

the next morning.20 The Court further expected defense counsel to speak with Mr.

Porter to “gauge where he was on the issue.”21

At an office conference before the second day of trial, the Court asked the

parties to address the potential conflict of interest regarding Mr. Green’s testimony.22

The State no longer believed a conflict existed, describing it as a “non-issue.” The

State based this belief on the case law provided by the Court as well as upon Ms.

Rau’s interpretation of any potential conflict.23 Ms. Rau agreed with that

representation from the State.24 The Court requested Ms. Rau make a record,

17
2014 WL 5390481, at *1 (Del. Super. Sept. 3, 2014).
18
2005 WL 1177567, at *1 (Del. Super. May 2, 2005).
19
App. to Def. Post Hr’g Br. at A198.
20
Id. at A272.
21
Id. at A274.
22
Id. at A282.
23
Id.
24
Id.

5
including “very finite dates [and] depth of representation.”25 The Court further

requested information regarding “which specific person at ODS [was involved in the

various representations].”26

At an office conference before the third day of trial, the State informed the

Court it intended to call Mr. Green to testify.27 Defense counsel did not object to Mr.

Green’s testimony.28 Ms. Rau stated she reviewed the dates she represented Mr.

Green, but could not locate them that morning.29 Ms. Rau also wanted to confirm

Mr. Green did not have any open cases.30

The Court asked Ms. Rau, “did you discuss the matter with Mr. Porter?”31 Ms.

Rau replied that she had spoken with Mr. Porter and, “[t]here’s no issue, Your

Honor.”32 The Court deferred making a more complete record regarding the

25
Id. at A283.
26
Id.
27
Id. at A343. The State declined to call the other “jailhouse informant.”
28
Id.
29
Id.
30
Id.
31
Id. at A344.
32
Id.

6
potential conflict of interest until Ms. Rau could provide the exact dates she

represented Mr. Green and whether he had any open cases.33

At an office conference before the fourth day of trial, the State reported that

Mr. Green would testify later that day.34 The Court then provided a recitation of the

status of any potential conflict of interest issue, including: (1) the State only intended

to call one jailhouse informant – Mr. Green; (2) Ms. Rau, Mr. Porter’s lead counsel,

previously represented Mr. Green; (3) counsel for both the State and Mr. Porter

determined no conflict existed; and (4) as Mr. Green was a former client, Delaware

Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9 governed.35 The Court then requested Ms. Rau

“flesh out a little bit for the Court[,] and[,] for the record[,] your prior representation

of Mr. Green.”36

Ms. Rau informed the Court:

Mr. Green was arrested on August 31, 2023. He had a case
opened [sic] with the Office of Defense Services on
September 5, 2023. I met Mr. Green at a preliminary
hearing. There was a pre-indictment offer to Wearing a
Disguise During Commission of a Felony. The
recommended sentence at that time was for six months
Level V followed by one year Level III. He took a plea on
October 25, 2023, and that modification was modified to

33
Id.
34
Id. at 460.
35
Id. at A461-63.
36
Id. at A464.

7
four months Level V followed by one year Level III. At
the time that the plea was entered, I did plea paperwork
with him, including the Truth-In-Sentencing Guilty Plea
form. At the time, he was aware that there was not a
violation filed against him. I advised him that[,] with this
plea, a violation can [sic] be filed against him, which[,]
subsequently, I believe, a day or two after the plea,
October 25, 2023, a violation was filed. [A different
attorney from ODS] handled the Superior Court violation
of probation on November 17, 2023. He was sentenced to
one year Level III to run concurrent followed by one year
restitution only.37

The Court inquired if ODS’s representation of Mr. Green terminated before the

commencement of trial, and Ms. Rau confirmed it had.38 Ms. Rau reiterated the

Defense did not believe a conflict existed.39 The State concurred.40

The Court found no evidence that Mr. Green and Mr. Porter’s matters were

substantially related or materially adverse to each other.41 The Court concluded no

conflict of interest existed.42 The State reiterated that a conflict attorney would

represent Mr. Green during his testimony.43 As a final point, the Court asked Ms.

37
Id. at A464-65.
38
Id. at A465.
39
Id.
40
Id. at A466.
41
Id.
42
Id.
43
Id.

8
Rau if she discussed with Mr. Porter her prior representation of Mr. Green.44 Ms.

Rau confirmed she had apprised Mr. Porter of the issue.45

Trial proceeded without any further discussion of the potential conflict of

interest. Mr. Green testified for the State, with Mr. Halsey handling the defense’s

cross-examination.46 The jury returned a guilty verdict on the lesser-included

offense of Murder in the Second Degree, as well as Robbery in the First Degree.47

For the Murder in the Second Degree offense, the Court sentenced Mr. Porter to 85

years at Level V, suspended after 65 years for descending levels of supervision.48

For the Robbery in the First Degree offense, the Court sentenced Mr. Porter to 25

years at Level V, suspended after five years for two years at Level III.49

B. Mr. Porter’s Appeal and the Order

On December 5, 2024, Mr. Porter filed a pro se letter with the Delaware

Supreme Court alerting it to the potential conflict of interest issue based on Ms.

Rau’s representation of Mr. Green.50 Mr. Porter cited Delaware Rule of Professional

44
Id. at A468.
45
Id.
46
Id. at A656.
47
D.I. 54 (Dec. 5, 2023).
48
App. to Def. Post Hr’g Br. at A881.
49
Id.
50
Id. at A886.
9
Conduct 1.7, and argued Ms. Rau’s representation of Mr. Green created a concurrent

conflict of interest.51 Mr. Porter further asserted the conflict of interest manifested

itself in an ineffective cross-examination of Mr. Green.52

Mr. Porter’s appellate attorney from ODS (“Prior Appellate Counsel”)

subsequently filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel.53 In her motion, Prior

Appellate Counsel stated, “[a]fter reviewing the record, speaking with the client, and

obtaining information from trial counsel, Counsel has determined that a conflict of

interest pursuant to Rule 1.7(a) (concurrent representation) existed during trial

counsel’s representation of Mr. Porter.”54 The Delaware Supreme Court granted that

motion, and appointed Appellate Counsel to represent Mr. Porter.55

Appellate Counsel filed an unopposed Motion for a Remand to Superior Court

on May 12, 2025, requesting a remand to allow this Court to further develop the

record regarding the potential conflict of interest.56 Specifically, that motion

requested the Court develop the record as to whether (1) Ms. Rau informed Mr.

51
Id.
52
Id. at A887.
53
Id. at A890.
54
Id.
55
Id. at A892.
56
Mot. for a Remand to Superior Court at 5.

10
Porter of her representation of Mr. Green before Mr. Green testified; and (2) “when

[Mr.] Green’s interests diverged from Mr. Porter’s, and when trial counsel became

aware of it.”57 The Delaware Supreme Court issued the Order on May 13, 2025,

remanding the matter to this Court.

C. Post-remand proceedings

This Court held an evidentiary hearing on September 16, 2025. At that

hearing, Mr. Halsey testified he joined Mr. Porter’s defense team “pretty late towards

the end.”58 He did not recall ever discussing with Ms. Rau whether her

representation of Mr. Green posed a conflict of interest.59 He did not recall if he or

Ms. Rau ever discussed the potential conflict with Mr. Porter.60 He could not

remember why he handled the cross-examination of Mr. Green.61

Ms. Rau testified that, at the time of Mr. Porter’s trial, she did not know Mr.

Green had previously been represented by ODS before her representation of him.62

She agreed ODS previously represented Mr. Green on a robbery charge, to which he

57
Id.
58
Tr. of Ev. Hr’g at 9.
59
Id. at 10-11.
60
Id. at 11.
61
Id. at 12.
62
Id. at 19.

11
entered a plea on February 9, 2022.63 When asked if she represented Mr. Porter at a

preliminary hearing on February 11, 2022, she responded, “I don’t recall, but I’m

assuming I did because we do vertical representation.”64 She acknowledged her

representation of Mr. Green included charges for which he was arrested on August

31, 2023.65

During Ms. Rau’s representation of Mr. Green, he agreed to enter a guilty plea

to resolve his case on October 25, 2023.66 That plea triggered a violation of

probation on Mr. Green’s previous case with ODS.67 When shown a copy of the

docket for Mr. Green’s previous case with ODS, she agreed it evidenced he had an

open violation of probation as of November 17, 2023.68 Ms. Rau agreed that, for the

entirety of the time she represented Mr. Green, she also represented Mr. Porter.69

63
Id. at 20; see Joint Exhibits for Ev. Hr’g at A102.
64
Id. at 21.
65
Id. at 23.
66
Id.
67
Id.
68
Id.
69
Id.

12
Appellate Counsel produced a letter written by Mr. Green to Ms. Rau dated

October 19, 2023 (the “Green Letter”).70 The Green Letter detailed conversations

Mr. Green alleged occurred with Mr. Porter wherein Mr. Porter admitted committing

murder.71 Mr. Green represented he could provide details about the case

incriminating Mr. Porter, and that Mr. Green qualified as a “past proven reliable

informant of the State.”72 The Green Letter made it clear Mr. Green intended to

provide information to the detriment of Mr. Porter in exchange for a favorable

outcome in his own “current legal woes.”73

Ms. Rau did not recall receiving the Green Letter.74 Appellate Counsel stated

he obtained the letter from her file, and questioned Ms. Rau regarding how the letter

would have gotten into her file without her seeing it.75 As Mr. Green sent the letter

before he entered a plea with Ms. Rau’s assistance, Appellate Counsel asked if Mr.

70
Id. at 24; see Joint Ex. for Ev. Hr’g at A120.
71
Joint Ex. for Ev. Hr’g at A120.
72
Id.
73
Id.
74
Tr. of Ev. Hr’g at 25.
75
Id.

13
Green mentioned the letter at the time he entered his plea.76 Ms. Rau denied that Mr.

Green ever mentioned it to her.77

Appellate Counsel next referenced a letter Mr. Green wrote to the State dated

October 26, 2023.78 In that letter, Mr. Green made similar statements regarding his

knowledge of Mr. Porter’s case and his desire to provide assistance against Mr.

Porter.79 Mr. Green referenced his pending violation of probation hearing scheduled

for November 9, 2023.80 The State provided this letter to Ms. Rau on November 17,

2023.81

The State sent Ms. Rau copies of audio recordings from various witnesses,

including Mr. Green, on November 21, 2023.82 Ms. Rau stated, “when I received

this letter from [the State] with the Cary Green insert, that triggered the, ‘Oh my

gosh, I just – I represented him at prelim and he’s a witness in my murder case.’”83

76
Id. at 26.
77
Id. at 27.
78
Id.; Joint Ex. for Ev. Hr’g at A118.
79
Joint Ex. for Ev. Hr’g at 118-19.
80
Id. at 119.
81
Id. at A117.
82
Id. at A110.
83
Tr. of Ev. Hr’g at 30.

14
Ms. Rau did not recall being aware of Mr. Green’s statements to police before

receiving that letter.84 That letter indicated Mr. Green provided a statement to police

regarding Mr. Porter on June 30, 2022.85

Ms. Rau did not recall speaking with Mr. Porter “on or prior to the 27 th of

November” about her representation of Mr. Green presenting a possible conflict of

interest.86 Ms. Rau could not recall any conversation she had with Mr. Porter

regarding Mr. Green.87 Ms. Rau conceded her records of the trial did not include

any notation that such a conversation occurred.88 She confirmed that, in an email to

Prior Appellate Counsel dated December 12, 2024, she informed Prior Appellate

Counsel she could not recall discussing her representation of Mr. Green with Mr.

Porter.89

84
Id.
85
Joint Ex. for Ev. Hr’g at A110.
86
Tr. of Ev. Hr’g at 36.
87
Id. at 40-41.
88
Id. at 41.
89
Id. at 43.

15
Ms. Rau agreed ODS “is treated as a law firm for purposes of evaluating

conflicts of interest.”90 She concurred it “would be a fair statement” to say she did

not understand that at the time of Mr. Porter’s trial.91 Ms. Rau could not recall why

she let Mr. Halsey handle Mr. Green’s cross-examination – the only witness Mr.

Halsey questioned during the trial – but testified, “I think if I did let him handle that

witness, it was probably because I had realized I just represented him at the pre-

indictment plea.”92 Ms. Rau testified ODS did not represent Mr. Green for his

testimony during Mr. Porter’s trial.93 Ms. Rau agreed ODS subsequently represented

Mr. Green at a violation of probation hearing on April 28, 2025.94 Ms. Rau testified

she considers the representation of a client to terminate when his case resolves by

plea or trial, and that any subsequent representation at a violation of probation

hearing would be a new representation, not a continuous representation.95

90
Id. at 46.
91
Id.
92
Id. at 47-48.
93
Id. at 52.
94
Id. at 56; see Joint Ex. for Ev. Hr’g at A105.
95
Id. at 58-59.

16
Mr. Porter testified he first became aware of Mr. Green’s potential testimony

against him “a few days before I started trial.”96 Mr. Porter stated Ms. Rau advised

him of the letter Mr. Green wrote to the State offering his assistance.97 Mr. Porter

denied Ms. Rau ever discussed her representation of Mr. Green with him leading up

to, or during, trial.98 Mr. Porter testified he “would’ve [sic] not been okay” with Ms.

Rau continuing to represent him had he known she also represented Mr. Green.99

From Mr. Porter’s recollection, the first time he became aware of Ms. Rau’s

representation of Mr. Green occurred during a meeting on the day of his

sentencing.100 He testified he wrote to the Delaware Supreme Court because Prior

Appellate Counsel advised him he could not raise the issue of Ms. Rau’s potential

conflict of interest until seeking post-conviction relief.101

96
Id. at 66.
97
Id.
98
Id. at 68. Mr. Porter’s and Ms. Rau’s recollection up to this point in the case’s chronological
timeline is consistent. Their recollections differ on the existence or depth of any conversation
related to Ms. Rau’s representation of Mr. Green.
99
Id. at 68-69.
100
Id. at 69.
101
Id. at 70.

17
III. Conclusions of Law

A. Conflicts of Interest

Delaware Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7 outlines that a concurrent conflict

of interest exists if:

(1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse
to another client; or (2) there is a significant risk that the
representation of one or more clients will be materially
limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a
former client[,] or a third person or by personal interest of
the lawyer.102

If a concurrent conflict exists, a prerequisite to the lawyer’s continued representation

of those clients requires “each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in

writing.”103 Delaware Rule of Professional Conduct 1.10 imputes conflicts under

either Rule 1.7 or Rule 1.9 to all lawyers within the same firm. 104 Delaware

decisional law regards ODS as a law firm for purposes of determining conflicts of

interest.105

102
DE R. RPC Rule 1.7(a).
103
DE R. RPC Rule 1.7(b)(4).
104
DE R. RPC Rule 1.10(a).
105
Santucci v. State, 223 A.3d 94 (Del. 2019).

18
Based on the timeline discussed above, it appears to the Court that ODS

represented Mr. Green and Mr. Porter concurrently. Further, during that concurrent

representation, Mr. Green’s and Mr. Porter’s interests diverged and became

adversarial. Specifically, Mr. Green’s letters to both ODS and the State offering

assistance in Mr. Porter’s trial in exchange for favorable outcomes in his own cases

demonstrate a clear conflict between Mr. Green’s representation and Mr. Porter’s.

Ms. Rau cannot recall discussing her representation of Mr. Green with Mr.

Porter. During the trial, however, Ms. Rau represented several times that she spoke

to Mr. Porter about the issue, and Mr. Porter did not object to her continued

representation. Mr. Porter denies that conversation took place. The Court finds Ms.

Rau likely mentioned the issue to Mr. Porter, but the Court cannot conclude that a

robust discussion of the issue took place between Ms. Rau and Mr. Porter. The Court

bases that finding, in part, on Ms. Rau’s testimony that indicates she may have

misunderstood the scope of the conflict created by ODS’s representation of Mr.

Green beyond her own personal participation in his case.

Moreover, Delaware Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7 required Mr. Porter’s

waiver to the conflict of interest be in writing. The record reflects no such written

waiver exists. Further, because Ms. Rau testified she did not fully appreciate the

potential conflict, the Court finds any waiver Mr. Porter would have given at the

time would not have been fully informed. Certainly, as Ms. Rau did not recall seeing

19
the Green Letter before Mr. Porter’s trial, it seems unlikely that Mr. Porter would

have been aware of that letter and its implications.

The State’s Post-Hearing Brief does not address the scope of Ms. Rau’s ODS

colleague’s representation of Mr. Green. Nor does it attempt to reconcile its assertion

that no conflict existed, despite the existence of the Green Letter. The Court agrees

with the State that Mr. Halsey’s performance during his cross-examination of Mr.

Green “is of no moment” at this stage.106 That Ms. Rau testified it would have made

sense to allow Mr. Halsey to conduct that cross-examination because of her recent

representation of Mr. Green suggests, however, that her decision making during the

trial was affected to some degree by her prior representation of Mr. Green.

IV. Conclusion

The Order, in its adoption of Mr. Porter’s Motion for a Remand to Superior

Court, instructed this Court to resolve whether Ms. Rau informed Mr. Porter of the

potential conflict of interest. Based upon the record now before the Court, this Court

concludes Ms. Rau did not fully inform Mr. Porter of the extent of the concurrent

conflict of interest. The Order further instructed this Court to resolve when Mr.

Green’s interests diverged from Mr. Porter’s. Based upon the record, the Court finds

their interests diverged when Mr. Green sent the Green Letter to Ms. Rau offering to

testify against Mr. Porter in exchange for a favorable resolution of his own case.

106
State’s Post Hr’g Br. at 7.
20
Accordingly, the Court finds a concurrent conflict of interest existed, and that

Mr. Porter did not provide informed consent to ODS’s continued representation

of him.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CC: Superior Court Prothonotary
Supreme Court Clerk, C.A. No.: 241,2024 (Via File & Servexpress)

21