Sleeping lawyers: Not just in Texas
We all know the story of the Texas lawyer who fell asleep during a capital trial, but now Scott points to one in New York. Unfortunately, as was the case with the Texas appeal, the court in NY also found that it was not ineffective, because, in essence, the lawyer did some “lawyering”.
Here’s another *ahem* reason the petition was denied: the judge that heard the petition for a new trial was the same judge that presided over the trial itself.
Scott does a good job, as usual, of pointing out how stupid this decision is, but misses one important question: What was the same judge doing hearing the petition for a new trial? If the defendant had filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the judge should have recused herself. Precisely for the reason that no judge will admit that there was a sleeping lawyer in the courtroom and they did not catch it, should this judge have not been presiding over this hearing.
I don’t know much about the NY post-conviction process, so maybe someone can clue me in. Was this a petition for writ of habeas corpus? If not, is that available to this defendant?
Either way, judges do the darnest things.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Gideon on August 21, 2007 at 7:40 am, and is filed under judges, sixth amendment. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 4 years ago
I don’t know about Conn. (it has been forever since I set foot in a New England courtroom) but in any overwhelming majority states the original trial judge sits as the level postconviction review judge.
Although there are obvious problems with this set-up if you are worried about innocence or otherwise pro-defendant oriented, from a systemic standpoint it is the most efficient / cheap way of reviewing postconviction cases since many — if not most — have little or no merit.
about 4 years ago
Even when it is not a motion for new trial/motion to vacate, but a Habeas Corpus petition?
Here, there are 2-3 designated habeas judges who sit on all habeas cases, unless they were involved in some way with the defendant in which case they usually recuse themselves.
With standard IAC claims, I can’t see how a Judge would not be influenced by his memory of the trial.
about 4 years ago
The case was federal, not New York, but the article fails to discuss its procedural posture. If it had been a hab, it should have gone to a different judge by definition. On the other hand, the article discusses the decision as one to vacate, but that raised the question of why it’s 10 years later.
Another interesting twist is that the trial judge now sits on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which creates yet further problems with the defendant getting a fair shake. while judges will no doubt argue that they can be fair and put aside their relationships with other judges, this at best presents hidden bias and just makes the whole process emit an unpleasant odor.
about 4 years ago
So it probably was just a motion to vacate, not a habeas corpus petition. That’s interesting. Was there a habeas? Perhaps there will be.
Wouldn’t she have to recuse herself from the panel at the 2nd Circuit if they did appeal it?
about 4 years ago
I’m sure she would have to recuse herself from the appellate panel. But the circuit is a small place, and if I were a defendant, I wouldn’t feel good about one circuit judge being forced to (imlcitly) slam another circuit judge in order for me to win. Would you?
about 4 years ago
In most states postconviction remedies are heard before the original trial judge. In those states where “habeas corpus” is a postconviction remedy it is normally heard before the original trial judge. In other states where habeas corpus remains as a civil remedy that does not go back before the trial judge it is generally available only where the original conviction is void (such as for double jeopardy) and not merely voidable.
In the federal system there are technically no habeas proceedings for federally sentenced inmates, rather they proceed by a sec. 2255 motion , which is the functional equivalent of a federal habeas petition. The original trial judge in most circumstances — or more likely her duly appointed magistrate — hears the sec. 2255 motion.
Put another way, in the circumstances you describe the guys case would in almost all circumstances have to go back to the original trial judge. Which brings up why we have so many layers of postconviction review, including for state sentenced inmates, federal habeas review.
about 4 years ago
I’ve had similar experiences in Georgia with the same judge presiding over a Motion for New Trial. However, I’ve also had one of my Motions granted when the Judge realized after a bench trial where my client was hastily found guilty with no evidence that essential elements of the crime hadn’t been proven.
Unfortunately, after he granted the motion, the prosecution was able to buy time to fill holes from the first time around and we lost again.
about 4 years ago
[quote comment="4413"]I’m sure she would have to recuse herself from the appellate panel. But the circuit is a small place, and if I were a defendant, I wouldn’t feel good about one circuit judge being forced to (imlcitly) slam another circuit judge in order for me to win. Would you?[/quote]
With facts like these? Most defendants would. Lawyers, on the other hand…
about 4 years ago
Maggie, how did the state beat the double jeopardy argument? Once is verdict is in on insufficient evidence, then, bingo. I do recall that there’s a Supreme Court case a few years ago that may foreclose the DJ argument in your case.
I’ve seen appellate courts cure sufficiency arguments on appeal, see e.g., Mayo v. State (Ind. 1997).