Opinion ID: 1602553
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Barnes Was Denied Effective Assistance of Counsel?

Text: Barnes contends that his counsel, James Fougerousse, provided him ineffective assistance. To determine Fougerousse's effectiveness, this Court must decide whether the evidence sufficiently meets the twopronged test enunciated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693 (1984), cited with approval in Wiley v. State, 517 So.2d 1373, 1378 (Miss. 1987). Pursuant to Strickland, the record must evince (1) prejudicial (2) deficiency in counsel's performance. 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d at 693. See also Wiley, 517 So.2d at 1378 (totality of the circumstances must be considered) (citing Martin v. Maggio, 711 F.2d 1273, 1280 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1028, 105 S.Ct. 447, 83 L.Ed.2d 373 (1984)). Barnes cites numerous (potentially) prejudicial deficiencies in Fougerousse's representation of him:
Barnes first explains that, after nearly two years of delay, Fougerousse utterly failed to conduct even a scintilla of discovery. Appellant's Brief at 6. The record reveals the following admissions which were made upon commencement of the trial: PROSECUTOR: Your Honor ... no discovery has been requested in this case... . ..... JUDGE: [Mr. Fougerousse, a]re you satisfied with discovery so far as you know at this point? FOUGEROUSSE: Yes, sir. PROSECUTOR: Your Honor, for the record, there has been no exchange of discovery at this point. JUDGE: All right. PROSECUTOR: There has been none requested. FOUGEROUSSE: Your Honor, I don't know what counsel is getting at... . JUDGE: (interposing) I can't hear you ... speak up. FOUGEROUSSE: There's been from our end ample discovery... . JUDGE: Well, [the prosecutor] is saying there has been no discovery and you are saying there has. I think for the record it needs to be cleared up. The only thing I see is an order for a continuance. PROSECUTOR: Your Honor, there has been no formal request, no letter, no oral request for discovery. Vol. II, at 3 & 7.
Barnes next explains that, because Fougerousse failed to conduct discovery, the prosecutor's files went unscrutinized. That is, Fougerousse failed to peruse the file for possible exculpatory evidence, and he failed to request the trial judge to peruse it. Thus, at this point, only the prosecutor knows if exculpatory evidence exists. Appellant's Brief at 7.
Prior to voir dire, the prosecutor announced that he intended to offer into evidence a misdemeanor conviction for impeachment purposes. Of course, Fougerousse was utterly surprised by the prosecutor's intention and incompetently debated the propriety of introducing the evidence. Fougerousse would not have been caught off guard and would not have been left virtually defenseless (speechless) had he conducted discovery and apprised himself of Barnes' record and so forth. Id. at 6-7.
The following exchange, which transpired after the jury was impaneled, is another example: [1] PROSECUTOR: Your Honor, at this time, the State would move for sanctions to be imposed on defense counsel for violation of discovery. He earlier this morning .. . advised the Court that he felt that discovery had been completed and he had told the State of his [only] witness, ... the defendant. [A] couple hours ago, he informed the State that he had other witnesses that had arrived and, Your Honor, this just simply makes a mockery of discovery. The defense counsel comes in with witnesses at the last moment and he hasn't told the State... . FOUGEROUSSE: (interposing) Your Honor, I am gonna object to counsel's characterizations. JUDGE: Well, you announced this morning in voir dire that you had one witness and that would be the defendant. FOUGEROUSSE: No, sir, I did not, Your Honor. What I stated, in response to the Court's question, was that I anticipated only the defendant and am still anticipating only the defendant. I do have one other witness that I may or may not use. [2] JUDGE: Well, the way I understood it this morning, there has been no discovery within the case... . ..... Well, just tell me, when did you discover  it's 3:00 ... and I want to get started on the trial. It's obvious that the State is not gonna ask for a continuance. When did you learn of this witness, Mr. Fougerousse? FOUGEROUSSE: Your Honor, this witness has been around since the case began. JUDGE: And you never bothered to tell the State that? ..... When are you gonna furnish the State with the names and addresses of your witnesses? I understand that there had been no ... discovery so that would make the issue moot but you tell me there has been discovery so I don't know what's going on. ..... I'll take up this matter after the case is over.... Vol. II, at 8-11. Need more be said?
Barnes explains that, during trial, numerous possible violations of his constitutional rights were evinced, but Fougerousse failed to investigate the possibilities. For example, the record indicates that, after Police Officer Preston Carter arrested Barnes, he proceeded to question him without advising him of his Miranda rights. The responses which Barnes provided during his unconstitutional custodial interrogation should have been deemed inadmissible at trial. However, Carter revealed Barnes' responses during his (Carter's) testimony. And at no time did Fougerousse object to or question the admissibility of the testimonial revelations. Appellant's Brief at 7.
Immediately upon Barnes' arrest, Carter conducted a warrantless, nonconsensual search of his (Barnes') automobile. Again, Fougerousse failed to inquire into the constitutionality of the search. Id.
According to Barnes, Fougerousse failed to object to impermissibly-elicited testimony regarding drug activity in certain areas of Jackson. The prosecutor failed to tie such drug activity to Barnes, to any element of probable cause for his arrest, or to the case in general. Thus, the testimony was irrelevant and, because Fougerousse failed to request that the jury be instructed to disregard the testimony, it could have been sufficiently inflammatory to prejudice Barnes' right to a fair trial. Id. at 7-8.
Barnes contends that, at one point, Fougerousse unwittingly became little more than a witness against [him] when he (Fougerousse) underscore[d] officer Carter's testimony ... by making the following objection: Your Honor, I am gonna object to this entire line of questioning. The State seems to be adducing testimony of sales and this is not a sales case. His whole testimony is going to exchanges, sales and deliveries. Id. at 8 (Vol. II, at 27) (emphasis added).
Finally, Barnes contends that the most glaring example of ineffectiveness of counsel regards Fougerousse's failure to raise the speedy-trial issue at the trial level. Id.