Opinion ID: 714016
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Unconsciousness.

Text: 46 We agree with the respondent that the appearance of sleeping may cover a range of behavior. Lawyers may sometimes affect a drowsy or bored look to downplay an adversary's presentation of evidence. We are also mindful of Judge Bellacosa's warning in People v. Winkler, 71 N.Y.2d 592, 598, 528 N.Y.S.2d 360, 363, 523 N.E.2d 485, 488 (1988)--cited both by Justice Braatz and by the Second Department on Tippins' state appeal--that a per se rule would give ... unscrupulous attorneys a delayed-trigger weapon to be sprung at some later strategic phase of the proceeding if events developed very badly for a defendant.... However, respondent has not contended that Tirelli's sleeping was a charade or a tactical device. And it would be difficult for the respondent to make that claim, given the testimony that the trial prosecutor acknowledged his adversary's snoring by exchanging knowing looks with the court reporter. In any event, trial judges are well-positioned to detect, guard against, and penalize such a tactical abuse of the right to counsel. 47 Respondent draws useful analogies to other kinds of lawyer impairment that have not been found to warrant findings of per se prejudice. See Berry v. King, 765 F.2d 451, 454 (5th Cir.1985) (drug abuse), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1164, 106 S.Ct. 2290, 90 L.Ed.2d 731 (1986); Burnett v. Collins, 982 F.2d 922, 930 (5th Cir.1993) (alcohol); Smith v. Ylst, 826 F.2d 872, 875-76 (9th Cir.1987) (mental illness), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 829, 109 S.Ct. 83, 102 L.Ed.2d 59 (1988). In Bellamy v. Cogdell, 974 F.2d 302, 303 (2d Cir.1992) (in banc), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 960, 113 S.Ct. 1383, 122 L.Ed.2d 759 (1993), we declined to apply the narrowly crafted per se rule to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on the lawyer's alleged mental illness. Although we ultimately agreed with the district court's conclusion that counsel was mentally competent, we also stated that there is simply nothing inherent in an attorney's illness that necessarily will impede a spirited defense 'most of the time'  so as to justify imposing a per se rule. Id. at 308. We pointed out that, given the varying effects health problems can have on an individual's ability to function, claims of ineffective assistance based on attorney illness are best suited to the fact-specific prejudice inquiry mandated by Strickland. Id. Respondent argues that occasional sleeping is analogous to the nebulous impairments of mental illness, drugs and alcohol, and emphasizes the subtleties and varying effects of sleep, dozing, meditating and concentrating by closing one's eyes and the varying effects of sleep on an individual's ability to function. 48 The point is well taken that consciousness and sleep form a continuum, and that there are states of drowsiness that come over everyone from time to time during a working day, or during a trial, for that matter. The record here demonstrates that Tirelli was actually unconscious. The testimony of several witnesses at the hearing leaves no room for shading or degree. Tirelli's sleeping was not a fitful inattention or a meditative focusing of the mind's powers. Luongo, the court reporter, heard him snore a couple of times as she was trying to focus on the transcription of the testimony. On those occasions, she recalled meeting the eyes of the prosecutor, and we both would look at Mr. Tirelli and know that he was snoring and ... it became apparent to me then. Luongo observed other telltale signs: Sometimes his head was falling down and he would pick it up. It was obvious that he was sleeping. She recalled that the pen even fell out of his hands a few times, and that he nodd[ed] out, having his hands down, even further than he would if you were sitting and taking notes with your hands over your head. 49 Halpern recalled looking over at Tirelli from the jury box and seeing him either head forward all the way, or head back all the way and eyes totally closed. Co-defendant Stokes heard Tirelli snoring and observed Tippins repeatedly jabbing his lawyer with his elbow in order to bring his attention to what was happening in the court. Co-defendant Blackman also heard snoring: 50 Q. And how do you know he was sleeping? 51 A. Well, sometimes, if the court got quiet, you will hear these strange sounds (witness made snoring sounds). 52