Opinion ID: 2538890
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: adequacy of investigation

Text: ¶ 25 A.N.J. challenges the adequacy of Anderson's investigation and his failure to consult with an expert witness. Anderson did no meaningful investigation. He called two witnesses provided by A.N.J.'s parents who might have testified that the complaining witness had been sexually abused before making these allegations against A.N.J. When he did not reach them on his first try, it appears he made no follow up attempts. While no binding opinion of this court has held an investigation is required, a defendant's counsel cannot properly evaluate the merits of a plea offer without evaluating the State's evidence. See State v. Bao Sheng Zhao, 157 Wash.2d 188, 205, 137 P.3d 835 (2006) (Sanders, J., concurring). ¶ 26 The Washington Defender Association (WDA) has established standards for adequate representation. See WDA, STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES std. 6 & cmt at 52-53 (2006). [12] The State essentially argues that we should not consider these standards because they have not been adopted by the court. We disagree. We accept the State's point that professional standards do not establish minimum Sixth Amendment standards. Cf. Helling v. Carey, 83 Wash.2d 514, 518-19, 519 P.2d 981 (1974) (quoting Texas & Pac. Ry. v. Behymer, 189 U.S. 468, 470, 23 S.Ct. 622, 47 L.Ed. 905 (1903)). `Courts must in the end say what is required; there are precautions so imperative that even their universal disregard will not excuse their omission.' Id. at 519, 519 P.2d 981 (emphasis omitted) (quoting The T.J. Hooper, 60 F.2d 737, 740 (2d Cir.1932)). However, while not binding, relevant standards are often useful to courts in evaluating things like effective assistance of counsel. See, e.g., In re Pers. Restraint of Brett, 142 Wash.2d 868, 879-80, 16 P.3d 601 (2001). We note that state law now requires each county or city providing public defense to adopt such standards, guided by standards endorsed by the Washington State Bar Association. RCW 10.101.030; see also WASH. STATE BAR ASS'N, STANDARDS FOR INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES (Sept. 20, 2007). While we do not adopt the WDA Standards for Public Defense Services, we hold they, and certainly the bar association's standards, may be considered with other evidence concerning the effective assistance of counsel. ¶ 27 The State essentially argues that Anderson, categorically, had no duty to investigate once he believed his client began to admit guilt. We disagree. First, we have already held that the failure to investigate, at least when coupled with other defects, can amount to ineffective assistance of counsel. In re Brett, 142 Wash.2d at 882-83, 16 P.3d 601. Second, and more importantly, the fact that Anderson seemed to believe that his client was going to confess, or even was guilty, was not enough to excuse some investigation. False confessions (especially by children), mistaken eyewitness identifications, and the fallibility of child testimony are well documented. See Richard A. Leo et al., Bringing Reliability Back In: False Confessions and Legal Safeguards in the Twenty-First Century, 2006 Wis. L. REV. 479, 480-85 (2006) (discussing the false confessions by juveniles to the Central Park jogger case); Steven A. Drizin & Richard A. Leo, The Problem of False Confessions in the Post-DNA World, 82 N.C. L. REV. 891, 904 (2004); Bernal v. People, 44 P.3d 184, 190 (Colo.2002) (discussing fallibility of eyewitness testimony). A criminal defense lawyer owes a duty to defend even a guilty client. RPC 3.1; WDA, supra, at 9; AM. BAR ASS'N, STANDARDS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROSECUTION FUNCTION AND DEFENSE FUNCTION 4-41(a) (3d 1993). [13] Counsel has a duty to assist a defendant in evaluating a plea offer. RPC 1.1 (A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires ... thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation); RPC 1.2(a) (In a criminal case, the lawyer shall abide by the client's decision, after consultation with the lawyer, as to a plea. (emphasis added)); State v. Osborne, 102 Wash.2d 87, 99, 684 P.2d 683 (1984) (citing State v. Cameron, 30 Wash.App. 229, 232, 633 P.2d 901 (1981)). Effective assistance of counsel includes assisting the defendant in making an informed decision as to whether to plead guilty or to proceed to trial. S.M., 100 Wash.App. at 413, 996 P.2d 1111. The degree and extent of investigation required will vary depending upon the issues and facts of each case, but we hold that at the very least, counsel must reasonably evaluate the evidence against the accused and the likelihood of a conviction if the case proceeds to trial so that the defendant can make a meaningful decision as to whether or not to plead guilty. [14] ¶ 28 A.N.J. also argues the Grant County public defender contract in place at the time created an incentive for attorneys not to investigate their clients' cases or hire experts. We agree. Entering such contracts is now a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. RPC 1.8(m). The system effectively paid a bounty for every guilty plea delivered by assigned defense counsel to the county prosecutor. This was a dysfunctional system. We do not, at this time, go so far as the Arizona Supreme Court in holding that the system itself violates a defendant's constitutional rights to due process and right to counsel. Cf. State v. Smith, 140 Ariz. 355, 362, 681 P.2d 1374 (1984) (finding somewhat similar system of public defense constitutionally defective). However, we hold that if a public defender contract requires the defender to pay investigative, expert, and conflict counsel fees out of the defender's fee, the contract may be considered as evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel. We further hold that depending on the nature of the charge and the issues presented, effective assistance of counsel may require the assistance of expert witnesses to test and evaluate the evidence against a defendant.