Opinion ID: 2557847
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Central Issue on Appeal.

Text: In this appeal, Jackson asks this Court to reverse the Superior Court's denial of his second Motion for Postconviction Relief. The relevant focus of Jackson's second Motion for Postconviction Relief is the November 10, 1992 Superior Court hearing regarding Hurley's Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. As earlier stated, in his written motion, Hurley cited the financial burden on Jackson's family of Hurley's continued representation as the reason for his desired withdrawal. At the hearing, however, Hurley asked the judge for leave to express an additional, unwritten reason at sidebar. Hurley expressed concern was that if his statement became public record and the press picked it up, it would compromise Jackson's right to a fair trial. Whether Jackson knew what Hurley wanted to tell the judge is somewhat unclear from the cold record. When discussing whether a sidebar was appropriate, the judge and Hurley had the following exchange: Judge: I presume the defendant knows about it? Hurley: No, he does not. Mere seconds later, however, the judge asked Hurley: Judge: Does he have your permission to speak to the court without his knowledge? Hurley: I've explained the difficulty to my client and I have his concurrence it may be said at sidebar. The judge then asked Jackson directly whether he understood what was about to happen, and Jackson replied that he understood. Whether or not Jackson personally knew the content of Hurley's sidebar comments, it is undisputed and the record does not belie that Jackson's successor attorneys were not present at the sidebar, nor did they receive any prior indication of what Hurley was going to say. What follows is the complete text of Hurley's commentary to the judge at sidebar: Your Honor, I've been a defense attorney for seventeen years and I am able to divorce myself emotionally from what I hear in representing a client. There is one exception to that. During the proof-positive hearing when I heard for the first time the graphic details that were given with regard to the victim in this case grabbing on to the handle of the axe with both hands while the defendant punched her with his free hand and she dropped to the ground, and then while she was writhing or spasming on the ground, then he struck her numerous times, instantly in my mind it brought back a circumstance where during the term of my marriage, my wife and I had a continual conversation regarding security at the house and the garage and her being in the garage. At that moment, I felt an absolute sense of revulsion toward the defendant. I reached the conclusion in my mind he ought to die. I identified I would not sit with him at the table for the remainder of the hearing. I met with him after that and I was supposed to meet with him that week and I delayed meeting with him because it was an emotional strain for me to have to meet with him. Finally, weeks after I was supposed to meet with him I met with him. I found him to be distasteful. I had conversation with him about the state of the case. Without indicating what he said to me, the explanations that were given created emotional responses in me and I don't think it is fair to him. I didn't put this in the motion because I thought it was prejudicial to him for an attorney to say in my estimation he's guilty and he ought to die. It's the only time it's happened in my life. But nonetheless, it is what it is. At the end of the hearing, the judge granted Hurley's Motion to Withdraw. The judge also ordered the transcript of the hearing sealed. The hearing transcript was placed in a sealed envelope which apparently was filed in the Prothonotary's Office on or about July 20, 1993 and marked psychological/psychiatric report. The sealed envelope also read Sealed per order of the court. No one made Jackson's later trial and post-trial attorneys aware of the substance of Hurley's sidebar commentary. Not until some unknown later point, and for reasons that are unclear from the record, did the transcript of the sidebar become physically unsealed. In April 2006, the Federal Community Defender Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvaniawhich had been assisting Jackson's Delaware counsel in connection with his second Motion for Postconviction Reliefreviewed the file in the Prothonotary's Office and first made note of the hearing transcript. In this appeal, Jackson contends that Hurley's sidebar remarks tainted all future proceedings by unfairly biasing the judge, who ultimately sentenced Jackson to death. For support, Jackson likens his case to Stevenson v. State. [4] Jackson also alleges that the trial judge violated his due process rights by not sua sponte recusing himself, or, at a minimum, disclosing Hurley's commentary to later trial and appellate counsel. The judge who denied Jackson's second Motion for Postconviction Relief reasoned that Hurley's comments did not deny Jackson his constitutional right to counsel, distinguished Stevenson and the other cases Jackson cited, and listed specific reasons supporting his conclusion that Hurley's comments did not taint the entire proceeding, or demand sua sponte recusal of the trial judge, or prejudice Jackson at trial or sentencing. [5] He characterized Hurley's comments as improper, unprofessional, unbecoming a member of the Delaware Bar, and most troubling . . ., but concluded that they did not ultimately undermine the reliability of the proceedings and did not entitle Jackson to relief because they did not prejudice him adversely.