They filed a motion for post conviction relief under Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 32, alleging incompetence of trial counsel. Before the motion was decided both New York attorney left the firm and were unable to continue representing Maples. Neither attorney notified Maples or the court of the change. Notice of the denial of the Rule 32 motion was sent to all counsel. The copies sent to Sullivan & Cromwell were returned, recipient unknown. Butler assumed Munanka and Ingen-Housz received notice and ignored his notice. The clerks’s office made no further attempt to find Ingens-Housz and Munanka. As a result Maples lost his chance to appeal the denial of the Rule 32 motion. By the time Maples found out about the failure to file an appeal it was too late. His motion to file a late appeal was denied. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, the Alabama Supreme Court, the Federal District Court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal all refused to give him relief. Finally the Supreme Court last week reopened the case. It ruled that while the normal rule is that since attorneys act as agents for their clients the failure of an attorney to meet a deadline is attributed to the client, in this case since the attorneys abandoned Maples they were no longer working as his agents. Furthermore since Maples had no way of knowing that he had been abandoned by his attorneys he could not be held responsible for failure to comply with the deadline for an appeal of the Rule 32 motion.

The Supreme Court remanded the case to determined if he had been prejudiced by the failure to file an appeal. Considering that Maples’ inexperienced trial attorneys got $40 per hour for in court time and $20 per hour for out of court time with a $1000 cap on out of court time it is likely that his new appellate counsel can find incompetence. But then again the way the lower courts treated him he may have problems.

I have seen no evidence that Munanka, Ingen-Housz and Butler have been reprimanded by the Bar for abandoning their client. I hope a civil suit is being filed.

Both incidents occurred, with different women on narcotics buying trips from Watkins Glen in Schuyler County, New York, to Rochester in Monroe County, New York.

His trial counsel failed to object to venue in Ontario County for the incident that occurred in Monroe County. The question before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was whether his counsel was incompetent and whether counsel’s incompetence prejudiced Cornell. Furthermore the court had to determine whether the state court decision was an unreasonable interpretation of established Supreme Court decisions under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).

The Second Circuit found that counsel was incompetent. Counsel did not research New York’s venue rules. While there is a statute that allows an individual to be charged in any county through which he/she travels committing an offence it has been modified by a court ruling such that it only applies where the actual county where the crime occurs is unknown. Here it is undisputed that one incident occurred in Monroe County and the other in Ontario County. Furthermore there was no strategic reason for not raising the issue. Counsel requested a severance on other grounds which was denied. But he could have gotten a severance if he had raised the venue question.

But a finding of incompetence is insufficient. Under the Supreme Court decision in Strickland not only must there be incompetence but it must also prejudice the defendant. Here if his counsel had raised the issue it would have gone before the jury where there was overwhelming evidence that one offense happened in Monroe County.

Since the issue was raised on habeas corpus the AEDPA requires that the state court’s decision not only be wrong but it must also be unreasonable. The Second Circuit found that the state court’s denial of Cornell’s claim unreasonable misinterpreted Strickland in that it found that despite trial counsel’s prejudicial error he/she was not incompetent. Therefore the court reversed the conviction for the Monroe County case and ordered the case dismissed unless the Monroe County prosecutor decides to retry the matter.

Share/Save

A defendant in a criminal trial not only has the Sixth Amendment right to counsel but the right to competent counsel. To win a grant of habeas corpus, alleging incompetence of counsel, a defendant carries the burden to prove that “(1) that counsel’s representation was deficient and (2) that he suffered prejudice as a result.”

The writ was granted and the government appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Eighth Circuit ruled that the in limine motion even if counsel was deficient in failing to make the motion ¹would not have had any effect on the trial since there was “overwhelming” evidence of the defendant’s guilt. Likewise the court found that Bass was not prejudiced by the failure of counsel to object to the testimony of a second witness due to the evidence against him.

“Vouching” for a witness occurs when an attorney claims to have knowledge, outside the evidence, that a witness is truthful. For example, an attorney cannot say in closing that I’ve known witness X for twenty years and he has never lied to me.” The alleged vouching occurred when the prosecutor said:

Most of them [the government's witnesses] have testified before this trial, but not all. And they know what the truth is, and they understand it’s important, and they came before you and told you the truth about Jerome Bass. Sergeant Langam explained it best when he testified about his personal barometer, how he gauges the truthfulness in proffer interviews. He corroborates the interviews against each other . . . .

But the appellate court found that the prosecutor was merely explaining why the jury could find the witnesses credible and she was not giving her personal opinion.

Share/Save

Jacobs’ guidelines were four to ten months. The government recommended seven months. In taking the plea the judge was very careful to make sure that Jacobs understood that he was waiving the right to appeal unless the judge granted an upward departure. But the judge did not discuss the possibility of a variance.

Under the Guidelines a three-part framework exists. First the court

(1) calculates the advisory sentencing range; (2) considers the specific offender characteristics and grounds for departure enumerated in the Guidelines; and (3) weighs the applicable factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) as a whole

A variance is a sentence outside the guideline structure. It is based on 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). which sets forth a number of characteristics that a court should take into consideration in sentencing. Subdivision 3553(a)(1) states “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;” At sentencing the judge pointed out Jacobs’ significant criminal history. Section 3553(a)(2)(B) lists “to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;” and at sentencing the court pointed out the failures of shorter sentences in the past to deter criminal behavior.

Variances and departures are treated differently. Departures require the court to give prior notice of its intention to depart. Variances do not require notice. ¹

I am willing to bet that prior to signing the plea agreement Jacobs’ attorney discussed with him the nature of an upward departure but did not discuss the possibility of a variance. It would surprize me if Jacobs understood prior to entering into the plea agreement that the judge may vary from the guidelines. In this case the final sentence was 260 per cent of the upper guideline. Assuming, I am correct, the waiver cannot be considered “knowing and voluntary.” In this case a habeas for incompetence of counsel will probably follow.

This Guidelines are very complicated. A lawyer representing a defendant in a Federal case must go over any plea agreement with a fine toothed comb and make sure that the defendant understands every detail of the agreement. In this case the lawyer should have insisted that the agreement preserve the right to appeal if the sentence exceeded the guidelines instead of limiting the right to appeal to cases in which an upward departure was granted.

Share/Save

Joshua Richter and Christian Branscombe were convicted of murdering Patrick Klein and shooting Joshua Johnson in Johnson’s house during a robbery. Johnson was shot in his bed and Klein was found on the living room couch.

A major issue at trial was Richter’s claim that Branscombe fired on Johnson in self defense and that Klein was killed in the doorway to Johnson’s room in the crossfire.

The prosecution argued, in line with Johnson’s testimony that Johnson woke up to find Branscombe and Richter in his room. Branscombe shot him. Later he heard noise in the living room. When he went out to investigate he found Klein, seriously bleeding and he called 911.

A limited number of blood samples were taken by the crime scene investigators and neither party planned on calling expert witnesses to testify about the blood. But after Richter’s attorney outlined his case in his opening statement, the prosecution had the samples tested and a police officer testified as a blood pattern expert. Blood spatter or blood pattern evidence evidence involves examination of the location of blood drops at the crime scene by an expert. It can be used to tell the location of the victim and the murderer at the time of the shooting. It is frequently used by the police and due to its technical nature it is not unusual for both sides to call an expert to explain crime scene blood distributions.

On habeas Richter argued that his counsel was incompetent for not consulting with various experts including a blood spatter expert.

The test for incompetence of counsel is found in the Supreme Court case, Strickland v. Washington ¹ Under Strickland in order to reverse a conviction for incompetence of counsel one must show that counsel acted at a level below what competent counsel would be expected to do and that counsel’s incompetence resulted in prejudice to the defendant. However under the AEDPA when a state court has considered a matter on its merits a Federal Court can only grant a writ of habeas corpus when the state court’s decision either

“(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
“(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the
evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”

The Supreme Court ruled that under the facts of the case it could neither find that the failure to consult with a blood spatter expert was an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law or that it resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence . Defense counsel may not have wanted to draw attention to the blood spatter by consulting an expert. Instead he/she may have argued that the prosecution did not do a thorough investigation and therefore failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result under the AEDPA the Supreme Court decided that the decision of the California Supreme Court was not unreasonable and therefore it reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision granting the habeas.

Share/Save

That was just the first of his mistakes. He then told two people about the incident and gave a confession to the police. ¹

Prior to trial, at his attorney’s urging, he entered into a plea bargain. He plead to felony murder for the minimum sentence of 300 months.

He then filed a writ of habeas corpus alleging incompetence of counsel for failure to file a motion suppressing the confession prior to entering the plea. The state courts in Oregon denied the writ but the Ninth Circuit granted it. The United States Supreme Court, yesterday, reversed the Ninth Circuit’s granting of the writ and reinstated the conviction. ²

The Ninth Circuit ruled that trial counsel acted below the standard expected of counsel when he/she did not run the motion before urging Moore to accept the plea. But the Supreme Court pointed out that the key case of Strickland v. Washington required that prior to reversing a conviction for incompetence of counsel, trial counsel must not only be incompetent but the defendant must be prejudiced. In this case the Supreme Court said that Moore was not prejudiced. Moore admitted committing the murder to two people who could testify. Even if the confession to the police was excluded at trial there would still be the testimony of these two people.

Trial counsel was reasonable in urging Moore to take the plea. His lawyer was afraid that if the plea was not accepted the prosecutor may find additional evidence and Moore may end up facing life in prison or the death penalty. Any time a defendant pleads guilty before trial he/she as well as the district attorney is taking a risk. No one knows whether more evidence will be found or whether the government’s case would fold. By taking a plea bargain a defendant gets a sure thing and the district attorney gets a conviction, though perhaps for less time than he/she might get after trial. Under these conditions counsel’s advice was reasonable and on a writ of habeas corpus reasonableness is all that is necessary. The state court’s ruling was not an “unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law.” Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) a Federal Court cannot reverse a state court’s denial of habeas corpus unless the state court’s decision was an “unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law.” Since that could not be said in this case the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Oregon Supreme Court denying the writ.

Share/Save

The second issue is whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction? But the appellate court ruled that Walden waived the issue when his attorney failed to move for a judgment of acquittal at trial.

Well the appeal appears to be just step one. Walden has plenty of issues to bring up in a writ of habeas corpus. No doubt he will claim incompetence of counsel for missing the deadline on the motion to suppress evidence, failure to show good cause for an extension of time, and the failure to make a motion for judgment of acquittal.

Share/Save

On August 12, 1998 Alicia Hernandez and Scott Anderson were shot while they were standing in front of a Detroit residence. At the trial Hernandez and Anderson testified that Hodgson and a group of his friends approached Hernandez and started an argument when Hernandez refused to disclose the whereabouts of her brother. Hernandez and Anderson thestified that they did not see Hodgson shoot a gun but from the position they were in they thought he shot the gun which injured them.

Several other witnesses for the prosecution also testified leading the jury to find Hodgson guilty. After several witnesses testified the prosecutor offered to stipulate to call off the other witnesses. The defense agreed with the exception of Virginia Smith who was expected to testify that she was standing near Hodgson at the time of the shooting and she did not see him with a gun. Smith was in the courtroom on the first day of the trial pursuant to the district attorney’s subpoena but she did not appear on the second day. A bench warrant was issued but she could not be found. Hodgson’s counsel did not move for a continuance to find her and the trial continued. Hodgson was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of between 18 and 42 years.

On appeal his new counsel argued that trial counsel had been incompetent inter alia for failure to call Smith and other witnesses at the trial. The appellate court treated the matter as a writ of habeas corpus and ordered an evidentiary hearing. A number of witnesses, including Smith, testified. The evidence at the hearing indicated that Hodgson was not the shooter. Just the same the motion was denied. The court claimed that there was insufficient evidence that Hodgson’s trial counsel knew of the exonerating witnesses, with the exception of Smith, or that they could have been found with reasonable efforts. Some of them were in jail and others had left the state. Furthermore Smith absented herself from the court and therefore was unavailable.

To show incompetence of counsel one must show that counsel performed at a standard below what is expected of counsel and that the defendant was prejudiced as a result of counsel substandard perfomance. The Sixth Circuit found that trial counsel was incompetent in not doing more to call Smith as a witness. At a minimum she should have asked for a continuance. While there was considerable testimony indicating that Hodgson shot the gun, neither Hernandez or Anderson saw him shoot the gun and Smith’s testimony could have influenced the jury into finding Hodgson not guilty. At the same time the failure of counsel to find the other witnesses who testified at the post-trial hearing was not incompetence because there was no evidence that she could have found the other witnesses prior to trial.

Share/Save

Patrick E. Washington was found guilty by a jury of crack cocaine related offenses. His counsel did not attend the presentence meeting between Washington and the probation officer. Nor did he prepare Washington for the meeting by telling him that his sentence could be increased for relevant conduct. Relevant conduct involves, in this case, crack cocaine related activity other than the specific incidents for which he stood trial. During the meeting with the probation officer Washington told the officer about prior crack cocaine sales. As a result he pushed the quantity up beyond 4.5 kilograms, the maximum for a two level reduction under the 2007 Crack Cocaine Amendments.

The Sixth Amendment provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his [sic] defense.” The right to counsel is available at all critical stages of the prosecution. The sentencing process is a critical stage and the failure of counsel to be aware of the importance of the nature of relevant conduct and the importance of the probation interview falls below the expected conduct of attorneys in Federal trials. As a result , Washington’s counsel was guilty of incompetence of counsel and Washington was hurt as a result thereof because he was not available for the level discount under the Crack Cocaine Amendments.

Share/Save

Jose Padilla, a citizen of Honduras who lived in this country for forty years was told by his counsel prior to his entering a guilty plea to trafficking in narcotics that he would not be deported. The advice was clearly wrong. The law mandate deportation for anyone convicted of trafficking.

The Court, using the Stickland standard, required that an attorney’s performance fall within the expected range of attorneys in similar cases and that the defendant not be prejudiced by the attorney’s performance.

But some courts, including the Supreme Court of Kentucky, have held that attorneys have no duty to inform the client of collateral effects of the plea. But the Supreme Court in this case, without directly deciding what collateral affects defense counsel must inform their clients of decided that in this case the odds on deportation were so great that not informing the defendant of the correct immigration consequences in effect left the client not knowing a direct effect of the plea.

While admitting that in some cases the immigration effects of a guilty plea may not be clear enough for a non-expert in immigration law to give competent advice the court said that in this case the defense counsel gave incompetent assistance by not accurately advising Padilla of the immigration consequences.

As Justice Alito pointed out in a concurring opinion the decision will lead to further litigation as to what cases will the immigration effects be too complicated to assume that a criminal defense attorney will be able to competently advise his/her client on the consequence. What about other collateral consequences, such as licensing issues, civil suits, tax issues, civil commitments, etc.

But there is no question that the better informed a defendant is about all of the consequences of a plea bargain, the better she/he can decide whether to accept the bargain. All too often clients are presented with a proposed bargain and given only a few minutes or less to decide whether or not to accept it. In these cases they do not have time to consider all of the possible ramifications of the agreement and often regret their decision with no ability to retract the plea.

Share/Save