Opinion ID: 4279239
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Potential for Prejudice

Text: For a pretrial confrontation to be a critical stage, it must also have the potential to prejudice the defendant and therefore undermine the integrity of the trial. Wade, 388 U.S. at 227. The ex parte, in camera hearing had the potential to prejudice Schmidt substantially. The state court’s conclusion to the contrary was unreasonable. “Fatal to Schmidt’s argument,” the Wisconsin court reasoned, the hearing was “supplemental” and “Schmidt had already submitted written offers of proof” in support of his defense. The logic of that rationalization for denying Schmidt assistance of counsel flies in the face of clearly established Supreme Court precedent. The Sixth Amendment analysis focuses on whether there is a potential for prejudice given what or whom the uncounseled defendant must confront and what counsel could do later to fix the defendant’s mistakes. E.g., Ash, 413 U.S. at 313, No. 17-1727 25 317; Coleman, 399 U.S. at 7 (plurality); id. at 11 (Black, J., concurring); Wade, 388 U.S. at 227. In this case, Schmidt was asked to meet the burden of production to preserve his most promising—indeed, his only—defense in mitigation at trial. In this case, no stage was more critical. What happened in chambers settled Schmidt’s fate. It reduced “the trial itself to a mere formality.” See Wade, 388 U.S. at 224. The criminal process is full of pretrial steps that involve both written and oral submissions to the court: to name a few, motions to suppress evidence; motions challenging venue, jurisdiction, or competency to stand trial; and motions asserting selective or vindictive prosecution, or denial of speedy trial rights, or discovery disputes. Counsel’s help with the written half of the process does not erase the potential for prejudice in the oral half, let alone justify denying assistance of counsel. To our knowledge, the Supreme Court has never held that having assistance of counsel in part of a critical stage of the prosecution justifies denial of counsel in the rest of it. In this case the judge questioned Schmidt after reviewing the written offers of proof. If the judge had thought the written offers of proof had met the some-evidence threshold, the ex parte, in camera questioning would have been unnecessary. What Schmidt would say in chambers was critical. Even if Schmidt had met the some-evidence threshold in his written offers of proof alone, his unfocused “rambling narrative” in chambers could have diluted that evidence with details harmful to his defense. At that point in the pretrial process, Schmidt did not need to prove adequate provocation. He needed to provide “some evidence” of it. Schmidt, 824 N.W.2d at 843, citing Head, 648 N.W.2d at 439. 26 No. 17-1727 The risk was not only that the judge might lose sight of the elements of adequate provocation or might fail to separate the wheat from the extensive chaff in Schmidt’s rambling answers, though those are certainly good reasons for needing counsel in the hearing. There was also a risk that Schmidt would convert the hearing into a mini-trial on the merits of his defense rather than a debate about the burden of production. If Schmidt could have just met the burden of production—and only that burden—he would have had the right to present his evidence and argue his defense to the jury. And the trial judge’s oral ruling suggests that this risk might have played out here: “The Court finds that the circumstances that led to the death of Kelly Wing did not involve a provocation and it was not an adequate provocation and denies the motion.” That conclusion sounds more like a decision on the merits than a decision on the burden of production. Finally, Schmidt’s counsel could not fix later the harm done by Schmidt’s answers. The trial court silenced counsel in the ex parte hearing and ruled on the defense shortly after questioning Schmidt. Because counsel could not later undo the harm to Schmidt, the risk of prejudice at the evidentiary hearing infected his trial.