Opinion ID: 1958816
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the ineffective assistance of counsel claim

Text: The target of Harris's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is G. Darrell Russell, Esq. Russell's background and experience may be gleaned from his testimony transcribed in the record before us. He was graduated from the University of Baltimore Law School in 1967 and was admitted to the Maryland bar in 1969. He was a law clerk for a judge of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. He worked for two law firms as counsel in general litigation. He was an Assistant Attorney General for four years. His primary responsibility in that position was representing the State Accident Fund, but he was also the prosecutor for licensing and regulations and wrote a criminal brief every six weeks or so. At one time, as an Assistant Attorney General, he was a chief juvenile law consultant and wrote the opinions for juvenile law. He went into private practice. He became a full time member of the staff of the Public Defender for Baltimore County in June 1978, but maintained his private practice. He served as an Assistant Public Defender for four years. In that capacity, up to the time he appeared as Harris's attorney, he had tried some 1,000 criminal cases in the circuit court, but only about 12 of them were jury trials. Only six or eight of all the cases he tried were murder cases and, to the best of his recollection, four of them were first degree murder cases. He resigned his position as an Assistant Public Defender in July 1982 to run for the office of State's Attorney for Baltimore County. Russell, as an Assistant Public Defender for Baltimore County, entered his appearance as Harris's counsel shortly after the indictment was returned. He withdrew from the case at the time the first appeal was noted. It is his performance during the period of his representation that is critical on this appeal. This is so because Harris's claim is one of actual ineffectiveness. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that [i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 27, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963); State v. Renshaw, 276 Md. 259, 264, 347 A.2d 219 (1975). [T]he right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel. McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 n. 14, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 1449 n. 14, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970). Thus, the right is denied, for example, when a defendant is not afforded the opportunity to have the assistance of counsel, whether retained or appointed, or when there is governmental interference with the ability of counsel to make independent decisions about how to conduct the defense. Counsel, however, can also deprive a defendant of the right to effective assistance, simply by failing to render `adequate legal assistance....' Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, ___, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Actual ineffectiveness is the basis of Harris's claim. Prior to Strickland the Supreme Court had not elaborated on the meaning of the constitutional requirement of effective assistance of counsel in cases presenting claims of actual ineffectiveness. In Strickland the Court gave meaning to the requirement. It took the purpose of the requirement  to ensure a fair trial  as the guide. It declared: The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result. Id., 104 S.Ct. at 2064. Harris evaluates the performance of Russell by the standards enunciated in Strickland, and concludes that Russell was so incompetent as to violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. [3] We shall examine Harris's ineffectiveness claim under the totality of the circumstances, with due regard to the evidence available to the State, what Harris told Russell, and the part played by Harris in planning the tactics and strategy of the defense. We shall evaluate Russell's performance by applying the teachings of Strickland.