“ In addressing petitioner's argument that the dual representation adversely affected petitioner's interests because Kondritzer negotiated an immunity agreement for Dixon, the Court of Appeals stated:
" [T] he assumption that Dixon received a grant of transactional immunity, negotiated by Kondritzer and the prosecutor in exchange for Dixon's testimony against [petitioner] , is without factual support. . . . There is no documentary evidence of any sort that attests to Dixon's having received immunity. ”

“ Although the court recognized the potential conflict of interest in Kondritzer's simultaneous representation of petitioner and Dixon, it held that "the conflict never became actual in the sense that Kondritzer's representation of Dixon's interests required him to compromise [petitioner's] interests." ”

“ The report in petitioner's case notes that Dixon was " [t] he witness most damaging to the defendant's case." Record, Respondent's Exh. 1, p. 54. It also states that "Dixon was granted immunity from prosecution and the jury was properly informed of this fact and an appropriate charge was given by the court to the jury." ”