Opinion ID: 334002
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Inadequacy of Counsel

Text: 9 On appeal, Fessel's first challenge to the verdict below rests on the allegedly inadequate representation provided by his court-appointed counsel. The appellant contends that the failure of his attorney to prepare an insanity defense by showing his probable incompetence at the time of the offense violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Fessel cites his attorney's failure to move, under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e) 10 for a court-appointed psychiatrist to assist in the preparation of an insanity defense. This failure, Fessel contends, deprived him of psychiatric testimony necessary to the preparation of his defense, and thus fell below the minimum level of representation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. We agree with this contention. 10 The standard for determining adequate assistance of counsel under the guarantees of the Sixth Amendment has been stated by this Court on numerous previous occasions. In MacKenna v. Ellis, 5 Cir. 1960, 280 F.2d 592, cert. denied, 368 U.S. 877, 82 S.Ct. 121, 7 L.Ed.2d 78, we rejected the 'mockery of justice' standard; we defined 'effective counsel' in terms of a 'reasonable counsel' standard: 11 We interpret the right to counsel as the right to effective counsel. We interpret counsel to mean not errorless counsel, and not counsel judged ineffective by hindsight, but counsel reasonably likely to render and rendering reasonably effective assistance. 12 The Court has reaffirmed this principle in a number of decisions. See, for example, Herring v. Estelle, 5 Cir. 1974, 491 F.2d 125, 127, see esp. n.4 at 127; United States v. Edwards, 5 Cir. 1974, 488 F.2d 1154, 1163. 13 This Court has repeatedly stressed the 'particularly critical interrelation between expert psychiatric assistance and minimally effective representation of counsel.' United States v. Edwards, 488 F.2d at 1163. In Edwards, this Court noted the importance of psychiatric assistance provided by a psychiatrist appointed under § 3006A(e). There we found ineffective assistance of counsel when the defendant's attorney had moved for a § 3006A(e) appointment, but had failed to pursue the motion after the district court mistakenly treated the resulting report as a § 4244 report. In United States v. Hamlet, 5 Cir. 1972, 456 F.2d 1284, we held that a psychiatrist appointed by the court under § 4244 to determine the present competency of the defendant to stand trial 'falls short of fulfilling the role of an expert selected under § 3006A(e) whose responsibility is to assist the defense'. 11 There we held that the trial judge's refusal to grant the § 3006A(e) motion denied the defendant a fair trial and constituted grounds for reversal. 14 These cases--others could be cited--illustrate the principle that when an insanity defense is appropriate and the defendant lacks funds to secure private psychiatric assistance, it is the duty of his attorney to seek such assistance through the use of § 3006A(e). This assistance is required whenever the services are 'necessary to the preparation and presentation of an adequate defense.' United States v. Chavis, 1973, 155 U.S.App.D.C. 190, 476 F.2d 1137, 1143, cited with approval in United States v. Edwards, 488 F.2d 1162 at n.6; see United States v. Theriault, 5 Cir. 1971, 440 F.2d 713, 715, cert. denied, 1973, 411 U.S. 984, 93 S.Ct. 2278, 36 L.Ed.2d 960. In the instant case, there could be little doubt as to the appropriateness of an insanity defense and the need for psychiatric assistance to prepare it. The evidence showing Fessel guilty of committing the acts charged was virtually uncontested. The only issue for the jury to consider therefore was the sanity of the defendant at the time of the offense. In the absence of live psychiatric testimony favorable to the defendant, the need for a § 3006A(e) motion was manifest. In these circumstances, we hold that the failure of counsel to utilize § 3006A(e) denied the accused services 'necessary to the preparation and presentation of an adequate defense', and thus denied him the minimally effective representation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.