Opinion ID: 2047878
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defense counsel's misconduct

Text: The other apparent basis for the grant of a new trial was a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel arising from retained defense counsel's misconduct. Throughout the trial, defense counsel behaved in a disrespectful and inappropriate manner toward the judge and the prosecutor. While much of counsel's behavior occurred outside the presence of the jury, the jury was present on three occasions in which counsel was fined by the trial court. In addition, it was later revealed that the jury overheard defense counsel shout a disparaging comment to the prosecutor while the jurors were in the jury room. Judge Michael Hathaway took testimony regarding defense counsel's misconduct to use in referring counsel to the Attorney Grievance Commission. During this hearing, Judge Hathaway learned that the jurors overheard one of defense counsel's disparaging comments directed at the prosecutor. Following this revelation, defendant's new counsel moved again for a new trial, on the new basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. Judge Michael Hathaway granted the motion, stating: This trial was even worse than I thought it was in the first place. I now know from [the prosecutor's] testimony ... [t]hat [defense counsel's] abuse of her took an extremely personal turn, and under the circumstances where the jury, whether they were in the box or not. Apparently overheard the remarks that he made to her, and that the jury commiserated with her about his treatment of her, in discussing the case with her after the verdict, in very sympathetic and supportive ways. And when you combine [defense counsel's] outrageous behavior during the [course] of this trial, with the fact that the jury knew about much of it, and commiserated with the prosecutor over it, as any human being would, under these circumstances. And then you also look back on the conduct of the trial itself, the way in which this reluctant witness was, her testimony was managed by the trial Court, and parts of her prior testimony read in on a question-by-question basis. The trial [court's] ruling about the admission of that testimony... [t]here is no question in my mind that this trial was a complete wreck, in extremely basic and fundamental ways....    It's not in any way the kind of strategy or behavior that we could attribute to the defendant, or say that the defendant is somehow benefiting from it. Judge Michael Hathaway thus reconsidered his earlier denial of defendant's motion for a new trial, because of defense counsel's outrageous behavior. What has not been tested through plenary appellate review, however, is retained defense counsel's ploy of creating an appellate parachute. The apparent defense strategy of intimidating all those who stood in the way of an acquittal, and of being as disruptive as possible, became evident throughout these proceedings, beginning as early as the preliminary examination. An example of these tactics includes defense counsel's calling the assistant prosecuting attorney, who was a woman, a tramp whom he wanted to shut up. Counsel's obstructionist behavior forced the court to hold him in contempt of court, to fine him three times during the trial, and to send him to jail. Counsel even went so far as to accuse the court of treating him like a Negro slave, and then dared the court to hold him in contempt yet again. While these actions largely took place outside the presence of the jury, they nonetheless appear to be actions designed to goad the court with the hopes of establishing error requiring reversal. Indeed, defense counsel's own comments at trial suggest that his outrageous behavior was designed to invite error and create an appellate parachute. During trial, defense counsel made the apparently self-fulfilling prophecy that this is going to come back on appeal. During his closing argument, defense counsel told the jury: ... please, please don't hold anything that I've done or my confrontations with the Judge or the prosecution and my willingness to be fined because you know what? My father, he used to work for a judge....    ... I'm a lawyer, not a doormat. And I'm going to do my job whether I have to go broke in the process.    Don't think about that. Don't think about me being held in contempt. That has nothing to do with it because I'm representing my client. Thus, defense counsel created an appellate parachute for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel while at the same arguing to the jury that the same ineffective assistance was simply part of doing his job. Because defense counsel's misconduct was central to Judge Michael Hathaway's decision to grant a new trial, I believe we should remand this case to the Court of Appeals so that a three-judge panel may fully review this troubling case for invited error. This Court should not deny plenary review of a decision that rewards such offensive and inappropriate behavior. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent from this Court's order denying the prosecutor's application for leave to appeal.