Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »


Trial strategy and ineffective assistance of counsel

Insight and remorse being two items in short supply among the prison population, it's unlikely that there are a large number of inmates whiling away their days of incarceration saying, "I shoulda listened to my lawyer."  One of them most certainly is not Maxwell Hoffman.

Hoffman was charged with capital murder in Idaho, and the state offered him a deal:  plead out to first degree murder and take a life sentence.  Hoffman's attorney, though, persuaded Hoffman to reject the deal, telling him that Idaho's death penalty would be declared unconstitutional in another then-pending case.  Hoffman took the advice, went to trial, lost, and was sentenced to death.  Oh, and that other then-pending case?  Ooops.  Turns out the lawyer was wrong:  the death penalty was upheld.

Hoffman's case eventually went into habeas, and this year the 9th Circuit held he'd had ineffective assistance of counsel:  the lawyer's advice was based on faulty interpretation and incomplete research.  The court offered Idaho the choice of giving Hoffman the same deal, or trying him again.  Idaho took it up, and the other day the Supreme Court granted cert.

Ineffective assistance of counsel is sort of the legal equivalent of Bigfoot:  people swear to have seen it, but confirmed incidents are exceedingly rare.  One of the reasons for that is the deference reviewing courts give to questions of "trial strategy and tactics"; if an attorney's action falls into that category, it's virtually immune from review.

The problem is that the exception threatens to swallow the rule:  virtually anything can fall under the rubric of "trial strategy."  Didn't call alibi witnesses?  Well, maybe the attorney figured they weren't any good.  Didn't ask the judge for a charge on a lesser included offense?  Maybe the attorney didn't want to give the jury a chance to come up with a compromise verdict.  Told the jury that his client was a drug dealer, which were the "scourge of the country," and that he couldn't believe the things that came out of his client's mouth, even after months after trial preparation?  According to the 1st District's decision last week in State v. Fikes, that's trial strategy, too.

I handled an appeal several years back where the client had been convicted of impersonating a police officer; he and an employee had gone to a woman's house to recover money from a social security check that she'd bounced, and thought it a good idea to wear jackets proclaiming that they were FBI agents.  The employee had given no fewer than three different statements to the police, each one more damning of my client than the last.  The prosecutor brought the Bruton problem to the judge's attention, but for reasons known only to him and his god, my client's trial lawyer decided to waive the right to separate trials.  The statements were introduced, the client wound up getting convicted of everything and went off to do a five-year streatch, and the employee walked out with a misdemeanor theft conviction.  I argued on appeal that no lawyer in his right mind would've agreed to a joint trial, but once a decision falls within the category of trial strategy, courts are loathe to review it, regardless of how unreasonable the strategy was.

It could be that the Supreme Court will use Hoffman's case to articulate a clear standard of when "trial strategy" immunizes a lawyer's decision from review.  It could be that, in the future, reviewing courts will have to evaluate such decisions more critically.

Or it may not, which is where the smart money is.  My guess is that the Court simply wants to play the 2008 version of its favorite game, 9th Circuit Smackdown.  Last year, fully one-third of the merit decisions the Supreme Court wrote on cases from the federal circuits came from the 9th, and the reversal rate was 90.5%.


Recent Entries

  • June 28, 2017
    Plea Bargaining -- The defendant's view
    A look at the Supreme Court's decision last week in Lee v. United States
  • June 27, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A worrisome decision on expert funding, and, mirabile dictu, a court's dismissal of a case for a discovery violation is upheld
  • June 23, 2017
    Crime and the First Amendment
    Facebook and sex offenders, and encouraging someone to kill himself
  • June 20, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    I come a cropper, plus inventory searches and mandatory probation
  • June 19, 2017
    Case Update - SCOTUS
    What's coming up in the US Supreme Court in the next two weeks
  • June 12, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    After weeks in the desert, we come upon an oasis of defense wins
  • June 7, 2017
    A switch in time
    Why what the Supreme Court did in Aalim II and Gonzales II is a bad thing
  • June 6, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A turnabout on prior calculation and design, and harmless error in all its manifestations
  • June 5, 2017
    Case Update
    A death penalty case, fourteen years after the crime, and we're just getting started. And two appellate decisions on search and seizure.
  • May 31, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    "What's a law enforcement accountability activist?" asked someone never, but the answer is here. Plus, cell phone experts, joinder, and the fading glory that was State v. Hand.