FOURTH CIRCUIT REVERSES CONVICTION FOR ATTORNEY SIGNING STIPULATION OVER CLIENT’S OBJECTION

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a conviction where the attorney, over the objection of her client agreed to an evidentiary stipulation.

Randolph Williams was charged with conspiracy to possess for distribution heroin. Heroin was sent from Panama addressed to the girl friend of Victor Johnson, a friend of Williams. Prior to the delivery a UPS employee became suspicious and turned the package over to law enforcement officers. A police officer dressed as a UPS employee delivered the package to the house shared by Johnson and his girlfriend. Johnson received the package. By prior arrangement he was to call Williams who was going to pick it up. Instead of course he was arrested at the time of delivery. He plead guilty and agreed to testify against Williams.

Prior to trial the U. S. attorney offered the following stipulation:

United States of America vs. Randolph Williams also known as Red, Criminal No 7:08-25, the Government and counsel for the defendant, Randolph Williams, that counsel being Lora Collins stipulate the following: that on October the 11th of the 2007 [sic] lieutenant [sic]Beth Rampey Vaughn a certified forensic chemist with the Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Office forensic laboratory located in Spartanburg, South Carolina, examined and analyzed the contents of the package addressed to Sabrina Hutchinson, 142 Westover Drive No. 5, Spartanburg, South Carolina, 29306 and seized by Eric Murphy of Customs and Border protection Louisville Kentucky, that the package was seized on October the 3rd of 2007 from the UPS sorting facility and submitted to forensic chemist Rampey Vaughn under ICE file No. GV13HE08GV0C1[ ], that forensic chemist Rampey Vaughn who has been qualified as an expert in the analysis of controlled substances in both state and federal courts within the District of South Carolina determined that this – that the package contained a total weight of 98.61–grams of heroin, a schedule I controlled substance. We do so stipulate, signed by Lora Collins, attorney for the defendant, and Assistant United States Attorney Regan A. Pendleton in Greenville, South Carolina

Williams refused to sign the stipulation and his counsel, with permission from the court signed it in his place. By signing the stipulation the attorney violated William’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. A defendant in a criminal case has the right to confront witnesses against him/her. A stipulation is an agreement between the parties that the jury may consider the agreement in lieu of hearing witnesses. While a defendant can waive the right of confrontation and agree to a stipulation, counsel for the defendant cannot waive the right over the objection of her client. While the Fourth Circuit had not ruled on the issue before it agreed with the unanimous opinion of other circuits and reversed the conviction.

The elements of the offense are:

(1) an agreement existed between two or more persons to possess with the intent to distribute heroin; (2) defendant knew of the conspiracy; and (3) “defendant knowingly and voluntarily became a part of the conspiracy.

The Court found that the error was not harmless since the stipulation practically made the first element of the offense and it reversed its conviction.

My question is why would the attorney, over the objection of her client, enter into the stipulation? An attorney is supposed to zealously represent her client. When representing a client you are, using your special skills to carry out the wishes of your client. Sometimes you may disagree with your client and you need to explain to your client why what he/she wants is not in his/her best interest but there is no evidence that requiring the prosecutor to prove her case, without the use of the stipulation, was in the defendant’s best interest. Perhaps the prosecutor wanted to use the stipulation because she was missing a witness. The case may have been dismissed without the stipulation. In which case the attorney’s action severely hurt the client. I cannot conceive of any reason in this case that the defense attorney would want to enter into a stipulation over the will of her client, unless she wanted to get the trial over fast so she could go on a vacation.