Document: 466 U.S. 648 104 S.Ct. 2039 80 L.Ed.2d 657 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Harrison P. CRONIC. No. 82-660. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Jan. 10, 1984. Decided May 14, Syllabus Respondent and two associates were indicted on mail fraud charges involving a "check kiting" scheme whereby checks transferred between bank in Florida Oklahoma. When respondent's retained counsel withdrew shortly before scheduled trial date, District appointed young lawyer with real estate practice who had never participated jury to represent respondent, but allowed him only 25 days prepare for trial, even though Government taken over four one-half years investigate case reviewed thousands documents during that investigation. was convicted, Appeals reversed, because it inferred right effective assistance under Sixth Amendment been violated. Finding unnecessary inquire into counsel's actual performance at court based its inference circumstances surrounding representation particularly (1) time afforded investigation preparation, (2) experience counsel, (3) gravity charge, (4) complexity possible defenses, (5) accessibility witnesses counsel. Held: The erred utilizing an inferential approach determining whether Pp. 653-667. (a) is accused require prosecution's survive crucible meaningful adversarial testing. true criminal has conducted, kind testing envisioned by occurred. 653-657. (b) Here, while purported apply standard reasonable competence, did not indicate there breakdown process trial. Instead, concluded respondent mandated unable discharge his duties. Only when justify presumption ineffectiveness can claim be sufficient without inquiry 657-662. (c) five criteria identified as warranting finding ineffective relevant evaluation lawyer's effectiveness particular case, neither separately nor combination provide basis concluding competent able this guiding hand Constitution guarantees. 663-666. (d) This one which make unlikely defendant could have received used do demonstrate failed function any sense Government's adversary. out pointing specific errors made 666-667. 675 F.2d 1126 (10th Cir.1982), reversed remanded. Edwin S. Kneedler, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Steven B. Duke, New Haven, Conn., respondent. Justice STEVENS delivered opinion Court. 1 transfer $9,400,000 banks Tampa, Fla., Norman, Okla., 4-month period 1975. Shortly withdrew. pretrial codefendants agreed testify Government; convicted 11 13 counts indictment 25-year sentence. 2 conviction "have Assistance Counsel defence" guaranteed Constitution.1 conclusion supported determination specified errors, prejudiced defense, or he exercise "the skill, judgment, diligence reasonably defense attorney"; instead rested premise no such showing necessary "when hamper given preparation defendant's case."2 question presented petition certiorari correctly interpreted Amendment. 3 * alleged scheme.3 At direction codefendant Cummings opened account name Skyproof Manufacturing, Inc. (Skyproof), Merritt accounts, own Skyproof, Okla.4 Knowing insufficient funds either account, defendants allegedly drew series wire transfers Tampa aggregating $4,841,073.95, all deposited Skyproof's Norman June 23, 1975, October 16, 1975; approximately same they deposits $4,600,881.39. clearing involved use mails. By "kiting" those cities, created false inflated balances accounts. After outlining overall scheme, Count I mailing each less than $1,000 early May. Each additional 12 realleged allegations except reference checks, then added allegation identifying other issued mailed later dates. 4 proved times places, amounts, described indictment. Having plea bargains Merritt, actually handled issuance delivery written instruments, through their testimony conceived directed entire deliberately concealed connection prior financial tax problems. 5 ruled impeach testimony, decided testify. put defense. cross-examination witnesses, however, established merely sham, operating company significant cash flow, revenues large "float" record disclosed. Cross-examination also absence evidence control personally withdrawals deposits.5 6 4-day ended July 17, 1980, sentenced August 28, 1980. His perfected timely appeal, docketed September 11, Two months filed motion substitute new attorney Appeals, seeking vacate ground newly discovered perjury officers bank, knew should known perjury. In challenged competence counsel.6 refused entertain appeal pending. denied designated appoint still another handle appeal. Later supplement material critical performance. 7 constitutional That criteria: " '(1) [T] preparation; counsel; charge; defenses; counsel.' 1126, 1129 (CA10 1982) (quoting v. Golub, 638 185, 189 1980)). Under test employed reversal required if flawless. approach, erred. II 8 An accused's represented fundamental component our justice system. Lawyers cases "are necessities, luxuries."7 Their presence essential are means rights person secured. Without itself would "of little avail,"8 recognized repeatedly.9 "Of has, far most pervasive affects ability assert may have."10 9 special value explains why "[i]t long counsel." McMann Richardson, 397 759, 771, n. 90 1441, 1449, 763 (1970). text suggests much. requires provision accused, "Assistance," "for defence." Thus, core purpose guarantee assure 'Assistance' confronted both intricacies law advocacy public prosecutor." Ash, 413 300, 309, 93 2568, 2573, 37 619 (1973). If "Assistance" "for" "defence" provided, violated.11 To hold otherwise 10 "could convert appointment sham nothing more formal compliance Constitution's requirement cannot satisfied mere appointment." Avery Alabama, 308 444, 446, 60 321, 322, 84 L.Ed. 377 (1940) (footnote omitted). indicated entitled "a attorney," U.S., 770, S.Ct., 1448, whose advice "within range demanded attorneys cases." Id., 1449.12 Cuyler Sullivan, 446 335, 100 1708, 64 333 (1980), we held guarantees "adequate legal assistance." 344, 1716. And Engle Isaac, 456 107, 102 1558, 71 783 (1982), referred fair attorney." 134, 1575. substance illuminated underlying purpose. "[T]ruth," Lord Eldon said, "is best powerful statements sides question."13 dictum describes unique strength system justice. "The very adversary partisan will promote ultimate objective guilty innocent go free." Herring York, 422 853, 862, 95 2550, 2555, 45 593 (1975).14 It "very premise" underlies gives meaning Amendment.15 meant fairness process." Morrison, 449 361, 364, 101 665, 667, 66 564 (1981). Unless receives serious risk injustice infects itself." 343, 1715.16 protected "counsel acting role advocate." Anders California, 386 738, 743, 87 1396, 1399, 18 493 (1967).17 thus conducted—even demonstrable errors18—the occurred.19 But loses character confrontation adversaries, violated.20 As Judge Wyzanski written: "While game participants expected enter ring near match skills, sacrifice unarmed prisoners gladiators." ex rel. Williams Twomey, 510 634, 640 (CA7), cert. sub nom. Sielaff Williams, 423 876, 96 148, 46 109 (1975).21 III 14 While case. Instead 15 conclusion, begin recognizing sake, effect receive Absent some conduct reliability process, generally implicated. See Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 858, 867-869, 3440, 3446-3447, 73 1193 (1982); 364-365, 667-668; Weatherford Bursey, 429 545, 97 837, 51 30 (1977).22 Moreover, presume needs, see Michel Louisiana, 350 91, 100-101, 76 158, 163-164, 83 (1955), burden rests violation.23 There are, so likely prejudice cost litigating unjustified.24 Most obvious, course, complete denial us conclude unfair stage trial.25 Similarly, entirely fails subject testing, makes presumptively unreliable. No Davis Alaska, 415 308, 94 1105, 39 347 (1974), petitioner "denied cross-examination" 'would error first magnitude amount want cure it.' 318, 1111 (citing Smith Illinois, 390 129, 131, 88 748, 749, 19 956 (1968), Brookhart Janis, 384 1, 3, 86 1245, 1246, 16 314 (1966)).26 Circumstances present occasions although available assist likelihood lawyer, fully one, small appropriate Powell 287 45, 53 55, 77 158 (1932), 17 highly publicized capital offense. Six judge "all members bar" purposes arraignment. "Whether thereafter appeared behalf, matter speculation only, or, indicated, anticipation part court." 56, 59. On day from Tennessee behalf persons "interested" defendants, stated opportunity familiarize himself local procedure, therefore unwilling short notice. problem resolved whatever help bar provide. young, ignorant, illiterate, surrounded hostile sentiment, haled back forth guard soldiers, charged atrocious crime regarded especial horror community where tried, peril lives within few moments after degree responsibility began them." 57-58, 60. "such designation attempted indefinite close upon substantial aid regard." 53, 58. examine these performed remote inherently unfair.27 properly presumed trial.28 20 every refusal postpone give rise presumption. (1940), three request prepare. Nevertheless, since easily accessible unreasonable expect adequately time, id., 450-453, 324-325.29 Chambers Maroney, 399 42, 26 419 (1970), "to fashion per se rule requiring following tardy 54, 1982.30 trial.31 21 find prosecution. Nor find, insufficiently reliable satisfy Constitution. dispositive representation—and justified presumption.32 IV 22 factors listed Appeals' 23 places stress disparity duration preparation. 12, 19, continuance 30. Although contended needed least reset 14—thus allowing 24 Neither spent investigating number agents investigation, necessarily defend days. task assembling admissible carry proving guilt beyond doubt different preparing deny rebut charge. Of rebuttal equally burdensome consuming, correlation two. devoted assembly, organization, summarization records evidencing streams flowing Oklahoma unquestionably simplified work understanding basic defendants' scheme.33 repetitious transactions fit single mold, exhibits define pattern unrelated understand it. significance further reduced nature against consisted establishing banks. A reason authenticity, accuracy, relevance evidence—there dispute occurred.34 appears recognize,35 bona fide issue open facts acted intent defraud.36 historical facts, consider arguably justifies Constitution.37 undermined fact principal estate, Every experienced once tried might useful try handling, example, armed robbery prosecutions. shed light performance, does evaluation.38 criteria—the witnesses39—are matters affect what done circumstances, none identifies themselves counsel.40 V 27 counsel.41 Court, argues support attack, leave claim—as well raised passed Appeals—for consideration remand.42 28 judgment remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 29 ordered. MARSHALL concurs judgment. provides, pertinent part: "In prosecutions, shall enjoy . informed cause accusation; him; compulsory obtaining favor, 1128 1982). States, 279, 280-282, 3088, 3089-3090, 767 (1982). according indictment, largely facade pretense permit withdrawal sums money good deal concerned efforts recoup losses, restitution. took bottling Texas acquired operation, apparently offered whole supplied rich aunt. much charges, considered sentencing During response questions bench, expressed satisfaction However, attacked explained praise affidavit psychologist advised order ameliorate apparent lack self-confidence. "That government hires lawyers prosecute hire strongest indications widespread belief courts luxuries. deemed trials countries, ours. From beginning, state national constitutions laws laid great emphasis procedural substantive safeguards designed impartial tribunals stands equal law." Gideon Wainwright, 372 792, 796, 799 (1963). Time eroded force Sutherland's (1932): heard be, many cases, avail comprehend Even intelligent educated layman sometimes skill science law. crime, incapable, generally, bad. He unfamiliar rules evidence. Left proper incompetent evidence, irrelevant inadmissible. lacks knowledge perfect one. step him. it, guilty, faces danger know how establish innocence. men intelligence, ignorant feeble intellect. civil criminal, federal arbitrarily refuse hear party appearing him, doubted hearing, and, therefore, due sense." 68-69, 63-64. 307-308, 2572-2573, (1973); Argersinger Hamlin, 407 25, 31-32, 92 2006, 2009-2010, 32 530 (1972); 343-345, 796-797; Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 462-463, 58 1019, 1022, 82 1461 (1938); Schaefer, Federalism State Criminal Procedure, 70 Harv.L.Rev. (1956). Amendment, terms, 'Assistance [for] defence.' begins end there. inadequate that, effect, provided. Clearly, 'have Counsel' denied." Decoster, 199 U.S.App.D.C. 359, 382, 624 196, 219 (MacKinnon, J., concurring), denied, 444 944, 302, 62 311 (1979). Wainwright Sykes, 433 72, 99, 2497, 2512, 594 (1977) (WHITE, concurring judgment); 117-118, 2522-2523 (BRENNAN, dissenting); Tollett Henderson, 411 258, 266-268, 1602, 1607-1608, 36 235 Parker North Carolina, 790, 797-798, 1458, 1462-1463, 785 Quoted Kaufman, Does Have Right Qualified Counsel?, 61 A.B.A.J. 569, 569 (1975). Polk County Dodson, 454 312, 445, 449, 509 (1981) ("The assumes ultimately advance interest truth fairness"); Gardner Florida, 430 349, 360, 1197, 1206, 393 (plurality opinion) ("Our debate adversaries often truth-seeking recognize importance giving comment influence decision cases"). "More specifically, understood mean restrictions defending prosecution accord traditions factfinding constitutionalized Fourteenth Amendments." 857, 2553. man determined which, here, impossible conclude, satisfactory certainty, presented." Betts Brady, 316 455, 476, 1252, 1263, 1595 (1942) (Black, dissenting). Jones Barnes, 463 745, 758, 103 3308, 3316, 987 (1983) dissenting) ("To Constitution, must advocate defendant, opposed friend court"); Ferri Ackerman, 193, 204, 402, 409, 355 (1979) ("Indeed, indispensable element [defense counsel's] responsibilities act independently oppose litigation"). 133-134, 1574-1575, Agurs, 427 97, 102, 5, 2392, 2396, 49 342 (1976); 267, 1608; 1462, 1463; 770-771, 1448-1449, (1970); Brady 742, 756-757, 1463, 1473-1474, 747 unethical. create disserve interests client attempting useless charade. Nickols Gagnon, 467, 472 (CA7 1971), 408 925, 2504, 33 336 (1972). theory available, stand made, heavy proof doubt. And, advise plead falls circumstances. 1607-1608; 1462-1463; McMann, 1448-1449. Bordenkircher Hayes, 434 357, 363-365, 98 663, 667-669, 54 604 (1978); Carolina Alford, 400 37-38, 91 160, 167-168, 162 750-752, 1469-1471. focused omission made. type implicates limited whole—specific omissions focus well. Strickland 668, 693-696, 2052, 2067-2069, 674. Since here. focuses relationship such. advocate, meets standards irrespective client's (1983); Morris Slappy, 461 1610, 75 610 (1983). attach weight expression dissatisfaction. 6, supra. Cf. 112, 2401 omitted) materiality [of prosecutor's failure disclose exculpatory evidence] reflect overriding concern guilt"). view abstract, rather impact "what, all, [the accused's], trial." McKaskle Wiggins, 465 168, 174, 949, 79 122 (1984). "Whenever asked charge professional responsibilities, start conscious duties clients sought conscientiously demonstrating contrary former clients." Matthews 518 1246 1975). See, e.g., Flanagan 259, 267-268, 1051, 1054, 288 (1984); Estelle 425 501, 504, 1691, 1693, 48 126 Murphy 421 794, 2031, 44 589 (1975); Bruton 391 123, 136-137, 1620, 1628, 476 (1968); Sheppard Maxwell, 333, 351-352, 1507, 1516-1517, 600 (1966); Jackson Denno, 378 368, 389-391, 1774, 1787-1788, 908 (1964); Payne Arkansas, 356 560, 567-568, 78 844, 849-850, 975 (1958); re Murchison, 349 133, 136, 623, 625, 99 942 (1955). uniformly found totally absent, prevented assisting proceeding. Geders 80, 1330, 47 592 Brooks Tennessee, 406 605, 612-613, 1891, 1895, 358 Hamilton 368 52, 157, 159, 114 (1961); White Maryland, 373 59, 60, 1050, 193 (1963) (per curiam); Ferguson Georgia, 365 570, 81 756, Kaiser, 323 471, 475-476, 65 363, 366, 89 398 (1945). Apart magnitude, violation unless show guilt. 2067-2069; 596 1214, 1221-1223 (CA5 1979), vacated moot, 903 (1980); Cooper Fitzharris, 586 1325, 1332-1333 (CA9 1978) (en banc); McQueen Swenson, 498 207, 219-220 (CA8 1974); Green Rundle, 1112, 1115 (CA3 1970); Bines, Remedying Ineffective Representation Cases: Departures Habeas Corpus, 59 Va.L.Rev. 927 Note, Basis Relief Conviction: Principles Appellate Review, Colum.J.Law & Social Prob. 76-80 (1977). "It enough assume precipitated thought exercised proceeding say prompt thoroughgoing facts. attempt investigate. given. Defendants immediately hurried disclosed, accorded sense. decide otherwise, simply ignore actualities." 58, 1985 (1970) (Harlan, dissenting part); Ragen, 324 760, 764, 978, 1348 (1945) House Mayo, 517, 519, 739 Ex parte Hawk, 321 114, 115-116, 448, 449-450, 572 (1944) curiam). Ineffectiveness "actively conflicting interests." 350, 1719, (1980). 268, 1054. "Joint suspect tends prevent doing." Holloway 435 475, 489-490, 1173, 1181, 55 426 (1978). Glasser 315 67-77, 457, 463-464, 680 (1942). Mancusi Stubbs, 214, 2308, 2313, 293 31 "external constraints" "external" constraint—the Court's attribute deficiency source external absent effect. 110, 2400 (prosecutorial misconduct evaluated culpability trial). clear Avery. Both form court-imposed limitations length yet "constraint" fact, last Term respect court's grant constraint" deference shown courts, scheduling problems face. 11-12, 1616. Conversely, labors conflict interest, despite constraints context self-imposed. Goodpaster, Trial Life: Effective Death Penalty Cases, N.Y.U.L.Rev. 299, 346-349 Functional Analysis Counsel, Colum.L.Rev. 1053, 1066-1068 Counsel: Lingering Debate, Cornell L.Rev. 659, 681-688 noteworthy about exhibits, consisting primarily batches together summary charts prepared Government, introduced 34 None several including study record, suggested challenge relevance, concerning issue. 35 Brief 56-61. statute, provides: "Whoever, having devised intending devise artifice defraud, property fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, away, distribute, supply, furnish procure unlawful counterfeit spurious coin, obligation, security, article, anything intimated executing do, post office authorized depository matter, thing sent Postal Service, takes therefrom, thing, knowingly causes thereon, place whom addressed, fined imprisoned years, both." U.S.C. § 1341. instructive compare Powell, reality until like Powell. 38 We commands pass wisdom propriety appointing inexperienced this. supervisory powers take greater precautions ensure qualified. Committee Consider Standards Admission Practice Federal Courts, Final Report, F.R.D. 215 (1979); Bazelon, Defective 42 U.Cin.L.Rev. 18-19 Burger, Special Skills Advocacy: Are Specialized Training Certification Advocates Essential Our System Justice?, Ford.L.Rev. 227 Some Further Reflections Problem Adequacy Schwarzer, Dealing Incompetent Judge's Role, 633 address prudent appropriate, constitutionally compelled. connection, worth noting located district undisputed 40 brief, goes enumerated arguing For points notes opening statement told aspects inconsistent unfair; indeed product tactical 41 passed, primary arguments court, confined analysis challenging omissions. Should pursue claims remand, enunciated 2067-2069. attack postconviction relief 2255, direct preserved review Whatever merits position general raise Rule Procedure 33. jurisdiction pending ruling erroneous. merits, certify intention remand Fuentes-Lozano, 580 724 1978); Phillips, 558 363 (CA6 1977) Ellison, 557 128, 132 965, 450 (1977); Hays, 274, 275 1972); Smith, 149, 151-152 (CA5); Lee, 428 917, 923 (CA6), 404 1017, 679, 665 Guam Inglett, 417 125 1969); Hersh, 835, 837 Richardson 360 368-369 1966); Comulada, 340 452 (CA2), 380 85 1343, 272 (1965); Ferina 302 95, 1962); 283 607, 610-611 (1960) (Bazelon, result), 364 938, 387, 369 Zamloch 187 854, proceeding, 889 1951) curiam), 889, 343 934, 72 1342 (1952); Rakes 163 772-773 (CA4 1947) 169 739, 335 826, 69 51, (1948); 8A J. Moore, Moore's ¶ 33.03[2] C. Wright, 557, pp. 338-340 (2d ed. Johnson, 327 106, 109-110, 464, 465, 562 (1946). reach ineffectiveness, considering Accordingly remains remand.

Category: 0