In State v. Quattlebaum, 338 S.C. 441, 527 S.E.2d 105 (S.C. 2000), law enforcement officers and the prosecuting attorney recorded a privileged conversation between a defendant and his attorney and did not reveal the existence of the videotape to the defendant or his attorneys for two years. The South Carolina Supreme Court reviewed federal cases involving government eavesdropping on attorney-client conversations and held the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated by the deliberate prosecutorial misconduct. Id. at 107-09. The Quattlebaum court disqualified the prosecuting attorney's office from prosecuting the defendant at his new trial. Quattlebaum, at 109. The court said Weatherford v. Bursey required a showing of at least a realistic possibility of prejudice to establish a Sixth Amendment violation and concluded: Weatherford is inapplicable to the case sub judice , where a member of the prosecution team intentionally eavesdropped on a confidential defense conversation. We conclude, consistent with existing federal precedent, that a defendant must show either deliberate prosecutorial misconduct or prejudice to make out a violation of the Sixth Amendment, but not both. Deliberate prosecutorial misconduct raises an irrebuttable presumption of prejudice. The content of the protected communication is not relevant. The focus must be on the misconduct. In cases involving unintentional intrusions into the attorney-client relationship, the defendant must make a prima facie showing of prejudice to shift the burden to the prosecution to prove the defendant was not prejudiced. (Quattlebaum, at 109.)