Opinion ID: 1467862
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: effective assistance

Text: Defendant argues that rejection of the plea agreement by the assistant judges served to deny him his constitutional rights to the effective assistance of counsel and due process of law. The basis of the objection, founded primarily on this Court's decision in Dunkerley, supra, is adequately stated in the majority opinion (q.v.); accordingly, it need not be repeated here in full. Nevertheless, I am in complete accord with defendant's position on the issue. Further, because the cases are so clearly and strikingly in point, I would remind the majority of the holding of the Indiana Supreme Court, quoted earlier in this opinion, relating to the legal knowledge and ability required of judges vis-a-vis attorneys, in In re Judicial Interpretation of 1975 Senate Enrolled Act No. 441, supra, and of the California Supreme Court in Gordon, supra, 12 Cal.3d at 328, 115 Cal.Rptr. at 635, 525 P.2d at 75: Whatever the justification for permitting laymen to preside over criminal trials in the 1800's, it is a well-recognized principle that even longstanding practices are subject to constitutional scrutiny and must meet the advancing standards of due process. The opinion recites both of these statements, but sloughs them off with an argument that is spurious and hollow at best. In effect, the majority expects us to accept the proposition that the mere presence of the presiding judge below, and the right of appeal to this Court, consisting of five lawyer-trained justices, is adequate. As pointed out above, this argument not only begs the question, it does not even address it. Once the assistant judges are given the power, conferred upon them today by the majority, to rule on questions of law, however limited the right may be, that issue is dead; it is not appealable nor will the presence of the presiding judge below resolve anything since he is subject to the untrained and unqualified predilections of laymen who may now overrule him at will on plea agreements. I reiterate: the underlying issue to be examined here in its constitutional dimensions is jurisdiction. Justification for the majority view that fails to address the jurisdiction to make decisions is not in point; it speaks to a manufactured issue, and is entirely irrelevant to the constitutional issues which are before us. Of course defendant has been denied the effective assistance of counsel. How can it be otherwise? Rulings on the legal issues inherent in the acceptance or rejection of plea agreements are in the hands of the untrained and unqualified, and defense counsel is helpless in the face of it. Counsel cannot even formulate a meaningful abuse of discretion claim because the deliberations which lead to the decisions are conducted behind closed doors. It is disturbing that the majority pays lip service to the limitations placed on the authority of assistant judges by Dunkerley as additional support for its decision, when, in fact, the very express prohibitions, presumably established by that case, are brought to nothing for this defendant and for others who may be in similar circumstances hereafter. We should be under no complacent illusions: that is exactly what has occurred today. This Court is satisfied that less legal ability is required of assistant judges to the extent they are empowered to act independently than of the lawyers practicing before them. Cf. In re Judicial Interpretation, supra. Enhancing the powers of lay judges, at the expense of the constitutional right to due process of defendants caught in the toils of criminal law, is the unfortunate consequence of today's decision. I believe that assistant judges are not trained or otherwise qualified to exercise the legal discretion called for in this case. On the other hand, as the Supreme Court of California has stated, while fairness is not impossible in matters which may be controlled by lay judges, the likelihood is substantially diminished. Gordon v. District Court, supra, at 329, 115 Cal.Rptr. at 636, 525 P.2d at 76. Courts must always have in mind and resist the temptation to respond to public pressure when a serious crime is involved; any other course approaches vigilante law. There will be others charged in the future with serious or minor offenses; in some cases the defendant will indeed be innocent. But what the majority has done today will affect the right of every person from this day on. I would reverse and remand for a new hearing on the plea agreement before a superior judge sitting alone. That is the only remedy which can assure this defendant, and others to come, that their due process rights are of more concern to the Vermont judicial system than are the secondary concerns of the judges who are a part of the system.