Document: 463 U.S. 745 103 S.Ct. 3308 77 L.Ed.2d 987 Everett W. JONES, Superintendent, Great Meadow Correctional Facility, et al., Petitioners,v.David BARNES. No. 81-1794. Argued Feb. 22, 1983. Decided July 5, Syllabus After respondent was convicted of robbery and assault in a jury trial New York state court, counsel appointed to represent him on appeal. Respondent informed several claims that he felt should be raised, but rejected most the suggested claims, stating they would not aid obtaining new could raised appeal because were based evidence record. Counsel then listed seven potential error considering including his brief, invited respondent's "reflections suggestions" with regard those claims. Counsel's brief Appellate Division Supreme Court concentrated three two which had been originally by respondent. In addition, own pro se briefs filed. At oral argument, argued points presented arguments briefs. The affirmed conviction. unsuccessful earlier collateral proceedings attacking conviction, filed this action Federal District Court, seeking habeas corpus relief basis appellate provided ineffective assistance. denied relief, Appeals reversed, concluding under Anders v. California, 386 738, 87 1396, 18 493—which held an attorney must advocate client's cause vigorously may withdraw from nonfrivolous appeal—appointed present all requested client. met standard failed certain Held: Defense assigned prosecute criminal conviction does have constitutional duty raise every issue defendant. accused has ultimate authority make fundamental decisions regarding case, decision whether take appeal; and, some limitations, elect act as advocate. However, indigent defendant no right compel press client, if counsel, matter professional judgment, decides points. By promulgating per rule client allowed decide what issues are pressed, seriously undermined ability case accord counsel's evaluation. Experienced advocates emphasized importance winnowing out weaker focusing one central possible, or at few key issues. Selecting promising for review assumed greater era when time argument is strictly limited courts page limits widely imposed. Anders, far giving support Appeals' rule, contrary; recognized advocate's role "requires best ability." U.S., 744, S.Ct., 1400. did just that. Pp. 750-754. 665 F.2d 427 (2nd Cir.1981) reversed. Barbara D. Underwood, Brookly , N.Y., petitioners. Sheila Ginsberg Riesel, City, Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 We granted certiorari consider defense 2 * 1976, Richard Butts robbed knifepoint four men lobby apartment building; badly beaten watch money taken. Housing Authority Detective assailants person known "Froggy," gave physical description detective. following day detective arrested David Barnes, who "Froggy." 3 charged first second degree robbery, assault, third larceny. prosecution rested primarily upon Butts' testimony identification respondent.1 During cross-examination, asked ever undergone psychiatric treatment; however, offer proof made substance relevance question after judge sua sponte instructed answer. close trial, declined give instruction accessorial liability defense. assault. 4 York, Second Department, Michael Melinger sent letter listing raised.2 Included suppressed, improperly excluded evidence, ineffective. also enclosed copy written. 5 return letter, accepted record reveal any response letter. 6 Melinger's respondent: improper exclusion failure suppress testimony, cross-examination judge. submitted brief. Thereafter, more briefs, raising identified. 7 On May 1978, summary order, 63 App.Div.2d 865, 405 N.Y.S.2d 621 (2d Dept.1978). leave appeal, 45 N.Y.2d 786, 409 1044, 381 N.E.2d 179 (1978). 8 August 8, petition writ United § ates Eastern York. five error, assistance counsel. without merit dismissed petition. States ex rel. Barnes Jones, 78-C-1717 (EDNY, Nov. 27, 1978). Circuit affirmed, 607 994, we certiorari, 444 853, 100 109, 62 71 (1979). 9 1980, challenges court. March 4, motion court sentence. That April 28, October 3. Meanwhile, 31, reconsideration court's denial petition, claimed Melinger, application 16, 49 1001, 429 1029, 406 1083 (1980). 10 returned time, claim concluded exhausted remedies, holding "any . reasonably applied." 80-C-2447 Jan. 30, 1981), reprinted App. Pet. Cert. 25a, 28a. concluded: 11 "It required argue conceivable especially merit. Indeed, it choose among issues, according judgment their tactical approach." Id., 28a-29a. 12 A divided panel (CA2 1981).3 Laying down standard, majority "the appellant requests [his attorney] additional colorable [on appeal], full extent 433 (emphasis added). view majority, conclusion followed 493 (1967). that, since bars abandoning 13 "[A]ppointed unwillingness particular appellant's request functions only abridge defendant's limit equal access process. ." Ibid. 14 went hold "[h]aving demonstrated request, need demonstrate likelihood success merits claims." 434. 15 above least claims: judge's instruct accessory fact these c re "[a] substitute advocacy experienced counsel." reversed remanded, instructions grant unless State 16 Judge Meskill dissented, overextended Anders. view, concerned pursue appeals; imply attorneys advance 17 --- ----, 102 2902, 73 1312 (1982), reverse. II announcing client,4 relied supra. There is, course, Griffin Illinois, 351 12, 18, 76 585, 590, L.Ed. 891 (1955), Douglas 372 353, 83 814, 811 (1963), open can pay it, indigent. It plead guilty, waive jury, testify her behalf, see Wainwright Sykes, 72, 93 n. 1, 97 2497, 2509 53 594 (1977) (BURGER, C.J., concurring); ABA Standards Criminal 4-5.2, 21-2.2 ed. 1980). advocate, Faretta 422 806, 95 2525, 562 (1975). Neither nor other suggests, 19 This provide right, superior trained "examination into record, research law, marshalling [the appellant's] behalf," 358, 817. Yet undermines 20 beyond memory Jackson, observing many years, stated: 21 "One tests discriminating select question, questions, will orally. Legal contentions, like currency, depreciate through over-issue. mind habitually receptive suggestion lower committed error. But receptiveness declines number errors increases. Multiplicity hints lack confidence one. [E]xperience bench convinces me multiplying assignments dilute weaken good save bad one." Advocacy Before 25 Temple L.Q. 115, 119 (1951). 22 Jackson's observatio echoes advice countless before since. An authoritative work practice observes: 23 "Most cases one, two, significant questions. Usually, you cannot win major points, others likely help, attempt deal great pages mean none receive adequate attention. effect adding weak force stronger ones." R. Stern, Practice 266 (1981).5 24 hardly about having examine selecting review. courts—often little minutes See, e.g., Fed.Rules App.Proc. 28(g); McKinney's 1982 Rules §§ 670.17(g)(2), 670.22. Even imposes limits, laid contrary experience logic. raises runs risk burying arguments—those words John Davis, "go jugular," Argument Appeal, 26 A.B.A.J. 895, 897 (1940)—in verbal mound up strong contentions. See generally, Godbold, Twenty Pages Minutes—Effective 30 Sw.L.J. 801 (1976).6 Court's announced Appeals, contrary. Here For judges second-guess reasonable judgments impose "colorable" disserve very goal vigorous effective underlies Nothing Constitution our interpretation document requires such standard.7 accordingly Reversed. 27 BLACKMUN, concurring judgment. 28 I do join opinion, ante, 751, there agree BRENNAN, American Bar Association, Justice, Standard 21-3.2, Comment, p. 21-42 ed., 1980), ethical matter, insists. Whether agrees legal strategy, seems lawyer, course succeed, acquiesce choice pursue. 29 Certainly, (1967), (1975), indicate attorney's usurpation violate Constitution. neither my ABA's ideal allocation decisionmaking between lawyer necessarily assumes status where performance "within range competence demanded cases," McMann Richardson, 397 759, 771, 90 1441, 1449, 763 (1970), "assure[s] opportunity fairly context State's process," Ross Moffitt, 417 600, 616, 94 2437, 2446, 41 341 (1974). both requirements here. attorney, refusing carry express wishes, forever foreclose As noted 848, 2547, (1975) (dissenting opinion), "[f]or overbearing conduct remedy," citing Brookhart Janis, 384 86 1245, 314 (1966), Fay Noia, 391, 439, 822, 849, 837 (1963). remedy, corpus. Thus, while reach 754, 7, insisted constitute "cause prejudice" resulting procedural default law. (1977). 31 whom MARSHALL joins, dissenting. 32 Sixth Amendment provides "[i]n prosecutions, shall enjoy Assistance defence" find myself disagreement over unsel" means. import "assistance" "counsel" inconsistent regime refuse arguable hearing assessment advice, directed them. remand determination insist found frivolous. 33 clear connection "As again again, entitled appointment assist Entsminger Iowa, 748, 1402, 1403, 501 (1967) (citations omitted).1 recognizing expressly Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, prohibits disadvantaging defendants comparison afford hire themselves, its Due Process Clause incorporation standards. 1400, (1967); 17, 589, (1956); cf. Johnson States, 352 565, 566, 550, 551, 593 (1957); Zerbst, 304 458, 462-463, 58 1019, 1022, 82 1461 (1938). theories converge also. Cf. Bearden Georgia, 2064, 75 (1983). incarcerate person, not, (or waived) stages process substantial rights affected. Argersinger Hamlin, 407 25, 92 2006, 530 (1972); Mempa Rhay, 389 128, 134, 88 254, 256, 336 extends frivolous.2 34 face define phrase "assistance counsel," surely empty content. No doubt qualified law question,3 representation afforded meet minimum standards effectiveness. Powell Alabama, 287 45, 71, 55, 65, 158 (1932). To satisfy Constitution, function defendant, opposed friend 1400; 1403. Admittedly, us look guarantees. What here relationship client—who appeal? believe counsel" carries personal decision, against chooses. 35 If protected interest justice, include right. decisively ably advanced BLACKMUN dissent. Holding observed: 36 undeniable prosecutions better defend guidance than unskilled efforts. voluntarily accept advantage lawyer's training realized, all, imperfectly. lead contrives him. Personal liberties rooted averages. personal. State, bear consequences therefore, free personally advantage. And although ultimately detriment, honored 'that respect individual lifeblood law.' Illinois Allen, 337, 350-351, 1057, 1064, 353 (BRENNAN, J., concurring)." 834, 2540. 37 establishes one's compe ently effectively. predicated protect dignity autonomy assisting making choices make, him, able tactics California reflects view. believes merit, furnish covering grounds so "raise chooses." 38 conceive all-or-nothing forgoing altogether relinquishing control aspect basic structure (i.e., how plead, defense, appeal). clearly matters. Absent exceptional circumstances, bound used Henry Mississippi, 379 443, 451, 85 564, 569, 408 He want innocent, even stratagems result dismissal charges reduction punishment. political reasons. parties. true proper efforts, insofar possible consistent conscience, duties 39 further position profession's conception role. Association taken 40 "[W]hen, estimate contention incorrect[, c]ounsel fully forcefully concerning probable outcome. role, advise. client." (1980) added).4 disregards statement profession defines stage referring governing trial. 753, 6; Function, 4-5.2 (1980).5 often hours, seconds. From standpoint administration confer decisive paramount hundreds quickly Decisions contrast, deliberately, deciding all. 42 rest entirely propositions. First, observes yet decided case. sense square point, explain above, supra, 758-759, describe terms today's holding. Moreover, mere way other. Second, argues demands selectivity arguments. certainly true—the good. ought heart called persuasion get wise understand staying prison values most, encourage defer require clients wise, policies weighed balance well. 43 secret mistrust lawyers generally Burt, Conflict Trust Between Attorney Client, 69 Geo.L.J. 1015 (1981); Skolnick, Social Control Adversary System, J. Res. 52 reasons this, perhaps unavoidable perfect conditions—differences education, disposition, socio-economic class—and (but always) zealously avoided. always same interests. paying clients, prosecutors think well working flat fee—a common arrangement fees appointments work, obvious financial incentive conclude docket swiftly. Good undoubtedly recognize temptations resist them, endeavor convince will. naive, suggest succeed either task. encourages disregard clients' wishes compelling exacerbate suspicion lawyers. Faretta, "can conspires him." end, hopes gain effectiveness today lost decreased areas representation. 44 overstate somewhat While excellent presentation briefing stage, serves interests, share implicit pessimism judges' meritorious less elegantly fewer liked, accompany it. quality justice country really depended nice gradations lawyers' rhetorical skills, longer call "justice." Especially level, part laims vindicated rejected, truly skillful difference handful cases.6 cases—in generally—clients thing advice. am willing deepening ensure optimal fraction-of-a-handful might affect reached Appeals. Finally, ruling denigrates rights, Fifth come play Certainly person's life changes crime brought must, harbors hope success, himself terms—often technical hard understand—that State's, own. practical necessary 463, 1022. Yet, until becomes final restrictions vindicate speedy, prosecution. instrument defender phases 46 Black wrote Von Moltke Gillies, 332 708, 725-726, 68 316, 324, 309 (1948): 47 "The guaranteed contemplates services devoted solely interests Glasser 315 60, 70 [62 457, 465, 680].. Undivided allegiance faithful, service prized traditions lawyer. kind makes provision. nowhere deemed honorable too poor though member unpopular hated group, offense peculiarly abhorrent." (footnote omitted). 48 subtly unmistakably adopts different role—he nothing considers important. ways, indignities visited someone ill fortune run afoul system. notion punishments receives merely being crime. Clients, wish, capable exercise prerogative respected consciences, hand, presume lightly disregarded obviously sound 835-836, 2541 (standards waiver counsel). reversing address factual respondent, advised lawye suggested, actually timely fashion identified 750-751, 4. content filing deprivation question. F. Cohen, Handbook Indian Law 308 (1982 ed.) ("[S]ection 1161 incorporates liquor laws measurement lawful unlawful federal [R]eservation Indians obtain license sell lawfully"). identification, took place one-on-one meeting arranged police, subject pretrial hearing. unnecessary validity identification. subsequent in-court independent source, years prior robbery. Respondent's Its contents inferred response. considered unjustly earlier; reviewed once. Until latest foray, ambiguity requested. assume, purposes review, correctly identified, simply Similarly, manual declares: "[A] treats matters serious risks becoming diffuse overall impression serious." Committee Courts City Model Professional Conduct provide: "A abide objectives consult means pursued. plea entered, testify." Conduct, Proposed Rule 1.2(a) (Final Draft 1982) With exception specified decisions, responsibility consulting appear accede insistence pressing Function provide, exceptions strategic exclusive province consultation Project Prosecution 5.2 (Tent. 1970). event, chosen given desirable appropriate requests. availability us, occasion refusal "cause" petitioner's within meaning Engle Isaac, 456 107, 1558, 1571, 783 (1982). surprisingly announces "[t]here appeal." Ante, 751. statement, besides quite arguably wrong. fifth Frankfurter, expressed appeal: "[N]either unfolding 'due process' particularized safeguards Bill Rights ways reflect national historic policy. appeals convictions (with roundabout negligible purposes) nearly hundred years; despite civilized modern England, (again, now pertinent) 1907. settled due judgments." 20-21, 591. passage McKane Durston, 153 684, 913, 867 (1894), Frankfurter relied, reassess significance factors conclusion. convictions, familiar mechanism form proceeding. few, any, situations system single i unreviewable discretion liberty property, reversal rate mandatory courts, overwhelming, high enough depriving expose them unacceptable erroneous Kagan, Cartwright, Friedman & Wheeler, Evolution Courts, Mich.L.Rev. 961, 994 (1978); Project, Stan.L.Rev. 951, 957, 962-964 (1981). Of presenting unlikely arise, reason universal convictions. Both indigents involving account specify outset wish exercise, avoid unwilling direction. allow properly supervised students defendants. 40-41, 2014, (1972) concurring). Code Responsibility EC7-7 ("the exclusively client" except "not substantially affecting prejudicing client"); id., EC7-8 remember forego legally available methods non-legal client"). Commission Standards, 1982). [if illegal unethical, if, d spite 'repugnant imprudent,' client], pursued." worth noting, commentary 1.2 discloses drafters' principal concern insurance company insureds represent, intended disciplinary general guidance. "handful" important—it shape Furthermore, relative skill pre-trial stages, strategy persuade almost investigate facts system's official "case" involves.

Category: 0