Opinion ID: 1520697
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trial counsel failed to keep the defendant informed of his case or prepare him adequately for trial.

Text: Trial counsel admitted that he never prepared his client with sample cross-examination and could recall preparing him for direct examination only by asking what he would say about the matter, in reply to which [h]e said he wasn't there. Counsel's own glaring lack of preparation became evident at trial when in full view of the jury, during appellant's testimony on redirect, counsel asked the court if he could consult with his client. The request was denied. Unprepared, appellant became confused under cross-examination as to the dates of the alleged incident and his arrest. Moreover, he testified that he had never seen Appenzeller before trial, only to be impeached by the fact that Appenzeller had testified against him at his earlier juvenile hearing. As indicated earlier, when appellant testified that he had been at home with his mother on the day of the robbery, he did so for the first time under the adverse conditions of cross-examination, rather than during his opening testimony. Even with adequate preparation, of course, appellant might have been impeached and the consistency of his story attacked. But here, his total lack of preparation made appellant look especially weak in withholding his alibi until cross-examination; and he was particularly easy prey for the government's sharp questions on cross-examination.