Document: 461 U.S. 1 103 S.Ct. 1610 75 L.Ed.2d 610 John Paul MORRIS, Warden, Petitioner,v.Joseph D. SLAPPY. No. 81-1095. Argued Dec. 1, 1982. Decided April 20, 1983. Syllabus When respondent was charged in California Superior Court with various crimes, including rape, robbery, and burglary, all concerning the same female victim, court assigned Deputy Public Defender to defend respondent. The represented at preliminary hearing supervised an extensive investigation. Shortly before trial, hospitalized for surgery, six days scheduled trial date a senior attorney Defender's Office represent After under way, moved continuance, claiming that his newly did not have time prepare case. attorney, however, told he fully prepared "ready" denied continuance. Respondent convicted on some counts but there mistrial other which jury could agree. A second during refused cooperate lawyer, also resulted convictions. of Appeal affirmed convictions counts, Supreme review. Thereafter, filed habeas corpus petition Federal District Court, alleging abused its discretion denying writ. Appeals reversed, holding Sixth Amendment guarantees right counsel whom accused has "meaningful attorney-client relationship," state judge violated this by arbitrarily continuance would permitted try Held: violate respondent's Pp. 11-15. (a) Broad must be granted courts matters continuances. Here, face unequivocal uncontradicted statement responsible officer it far from abuse deny Nor is any merit claim denial prevented substituted being trial. Pp.11-12 (b) In refusing case, misread record controlling law announced new constitutional standard—"meaningful relationship"—that unsupported authority. erred reading as indicating timely good faith permit him. On contrary, shows abundantly justified midtrial motion so does guarantee relationship" between counsel. No possibly will develop kind rapport thought part 12-14. (c) creating novel ordering retrial, failed take into account interest victim undergoing ordeal yet third There nothing support conclusion entitled properly relief. 14-15. 649 F.2d 718, reversed remanded. Dane R. Gillette, San Francisco, Cal., petitioner. Michael B. Bassi, CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered opinion Court. question presented whether error hold until initially him available. We certiorari, 456 904, 102 1748, 72 160 (1982), we reverse. 2 issues raised arise out two trials court, having been held first false imprisonment trial; rape forcible oral copulation second. review five Appeal, First Appellate District, convictions, Thereafter United States writ corpus. This Appeals, based substitution appointed 718 (CA9 1981). 3 * Respondent's pro se set forth grounds relief: "[t]rial failing order after [respondent became] embroiled irreconcilable conflict," Record 3; had testify own behalf Ibid. facts shown conclusively rebut both these claims are alone dispositive, independent correctness Appeals. 4 midnight July 7, 1976, young woman, left her apartment shop nearby grocery store Francisco. she accosted when complained manager, ordered leave. waited outside; store, threw beer bottle her. She asked manager call police, just walk away. then walked home taking long way around block, entered house, waiting lobby. From fact, inferred stalking apartment. forced basement, where, testified, raped sodomized robbed 5 managed escape fled building all-night diner, where sheltered police came. gave description assailant; apprehended blocks He wearing green fatigue jacket fur-trimmed hood "Afro" style wig described police. person found jewelry taken victim. booking given woman whose last name recall address know. Police victim's clothing scattered floor basement button steps. 6 Francisco felonies.1 Harvey Goldfine accused. Thursday, September 23, 1976. prior emergency surgery. Friday, 17, date, Bruce Hotchkiss, Office, 7 day Hotchkiss interviewed jail advised substitution. Between following Tuesday, 21, reviewed files investigation colleague. conferred three hours; again met morning afternoon. Day Trial 8 began 23. At opening "I only P.D. [Public Defender] half, came Tuesday night, night I saw . enough case." App. 7. 9 Construing remarks motion, noting case previous stated "investigated [and] studied it." Id., 8. reply, repeated half. stated: 10 "[T]his past [Hotchkiss me.] said busy couldn't make up there. [sic] one half your Honor, can't investigate things Some major investigated. It's impossible care properly, should represented." 11 explained Goldfine's absence basis study made conferences feel am prepared. My feeling further benefit me presenting 11. replied "satisfied Defender, it's no possible 12 (emphasis added). confident representing adequately experienced counsel; 9. 13 Second 14 start 24, expressed confidence said, 15 don't mean he's P.D., anything against didn't half." 18 16 satisfied "well prepared" Goldfine, week, read transcript hearing, "prepared matters, obtained pictures, items intends produce evidence." conclusion, stated, Mr. doing more than adequate job, very fine job." 18-19. 17 continued complain investigated "My needed done quite done." 21-22. 19 Finally, pointed weekend close prosecution's beginning defense's 22-23. 20 time—on trial—respondent mentioned name. complaining about Hotchkiss's alleged lack preparation, "Mr. my still is. haven't seen weeks because hospital." 24. claimed even case: go over me, time." concluded additional complaints preparation. 21 Third 22 resumed four later, 28, Out presence jury, corpus, unrepresented petition, attorney. Specifically, 23 "the attorney's hospital, legally here defense charges." 29 24 disputed charge. treated renewal it. 25 Following court's ruling, returned cell. urged refused, him: Counsel, got through telling you, Counsel." 32. However, remained courtroom proceeded. Later, renewed attack: 26 "What do say get what you understand. or times, keep talking Counsel. that's 37-38. 27 Ultimately, stand, ignoring Hotchkiss' advice testify. verdict guilty reach counts. 28 (d) week charges unresolved result appeared Once more, ignored stand.2 Indeed, speak Hotchkiss. sexual assault counts; B 30 Northern (Peckham, J.) construed liberally allow writ, 31 "The supports judge's able despite [respondent's] cooperation him." Pet. Cert. D3-D4. 32 rejected respondent, stating 33 "it unreasonable conclude efficient administration justice required petitioner rather latter recovered surgery." D4-D5. 34 thus continuance.3 35 reversing Court's acknowledged "an indigent defendant unqualified appointment choosing," argued seeking choosing; rather, "was merely [Goldfine] trial." 720. 36 went announce component right, held, 37 "be without substance if include meaningful relationship." 38 seems determined, solely confusing contradictory subject, developed such 39 next inquire probable length absence, weighed representation state's proceeding failure conduct balancing test hence counsel;4 violation require reversal need show prejudice. directed issue unless received II 40 Not every restriction counsel's opportunity consult client otherwise violates defendant's See Chambers v. Maroney, 399 42, 53-54, 90 1975, 1982-1983, 419 (1970). judges necessarily great deal latitude scheduling trials. least their problems assembling witnesses, lawyers, jurors place time, burden counsels continuances except compelling reasons. Consequently, broad continuances; unreasoning arbitrary "insistence upon expeditiousness justifiable request delay" assistance Ungar Sarafite, 376 575, 589, 84 841, 849, 921 (1964). 41 greater usual showing prompt action place, investigation, careful materials "a case," record, remarkable accepted assurances. 42 Despite adamant—even contumacious—refusal stand advised, spite numerous outbursts disruptions, overwhelming evidence guilt, succeeded getting "hung jury" most serious Given undisputed jury's convict cannot reflect favorably readiness III 43 standard A. 44 Appeals' delay continue clearly specifically assert concern Goldfine. Until then, sought give necessary Moreover, disavowed dissatisfaction informed "satisfied" 12. fathom how unspoken preference 45 respondents' reasonably belated requests were transparent ploy delay. our view, exhibited sensitive rights extraordinary patience contumacious litigant.5 46 "would F.2d, 720 added), law. authority cited ingredient counsel, course none be. attorney—privately retained provided public—that Accordingly, reject counsel.6 IV 47 gone unusual discussing relevant authorities evaluate idea Had examined carefully, occasion consider, let announce, rule Amendment. 48 haste create wholly crimes Of course, inconvenience embarrassment witnesses justify enforce accused: prejudicial impairs rights, borne prosecution, courts, witnesses; Constitution permits less. But criminal justice, may ignore concerns victims. Apart factors, hardly encourage victims report violations proper authorities; especially crime calling public testimony humiliating degrading experience involved here. Precisely weight reliving decided now; factor courts. spectacle establish truth single episode inevitably places burdens system terms records, fading memories, misusing judicial resources. 49 Over years ago, Roscoe Pound condemned American "substantive justice," treating sporting contests "inquiry is, Have rules game carried strictly?" Pound, Causes Popular Dissatisfaction With Administration Justice, ABA Ann.Rep. 395, 406 (1906). "game," gives constitutionally fair Judge 50 judgment remanded directions reinstate 51 It ordered. 52 Justice BRENNAN, MARSHALL joins, concurring result. 53 states "[i]n [Court Appeals] Ante, 14. Unfortunately, easily "deal 'meaningful relationship,' " ibid., reaches unnecessary judgment, mischaracterizes opinion, disregards crucial role justice. For reasons below, concur judgment. 54 reviewing proceedings unavailability deputy defender originally 719-720 therefore, proceeded consider grant well considering question, choosing." particular defendant, relationship encompassed important affects quality ability present effective defense. 720-721. regard, noted denials can amount due process. 721. reason "to distinguish context preserving 55 light importance sixth amendment counsel," (as incorporated fourteenth amendment) encompasses accord determining founded temporary attorney." motions balance societal 'prompt justice.' (citation omitted). expected and, "engage protect rights." 722. As result, Ibid.1 56 prejudice conviction. reaching involve ineffective previously reversal. 722, n. 4. Instead, analogized cases either fulfilling normal functions. 723. demonstrate Ibid.2 57 agree concluding, implicitly, desire 12-13.3 58 initial ground 7-13. prepare. 17. [his] hospital. suggested, "didn't clear, basing inartful inadequate preparation Even construing statements liberally, should, understood Based assurances prepared, id., 10-11; see 21-23, 59 intervening weekend, "writ corpus" court. 28. based, part, hospital "legally [an] 29. During discussion judge, repeatedly 32, 38, 41. point, moving points out, finally clear ante, 13, begun. "in ." 588-591, 849-850, 60 Because unavailability, recognizes much "[t]he Appeals." 61 recognition decision, rejects summarily relationship' counsel." (footnote simply "for be." "[n]o extent analysis. Properly understood, recognized find 62 central system. See, e.g., Holloway Arkansas, 435 475, 98 1173, 426 (1978); Geders States, 425 80, 96 1330, 592 (1976); Herring New York, 422 853, 95 2550, 593 (1975); Argersinger Hamlin, 407 25, 92 2006, 530 (1972); Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 83 792, 799 (1963); Chandler Fretag, 348 3, 99 L.Ed. (1954); Glasser 315 60, 457, 86 680 (1942); Powell Alabama, 287 45, 55, 77 158 (1932). "fundamental," supra, U.S., 344, S.Ct., 796, often requisite existence 31, 2009. 63 heard be, many cases, little avail comprehend intelligent educated layman small sometimes skill science If crime, incapable, generally, himself indictment bad. unfamiliar evidence. Left aid put charge, incompetent evidence, irrelevant inadmissible. lacks knowledge defense, though perfect one. requires guiding hand step Without it, guilty, faces danger conviction know innocence." 68-69, 63-64. 64 presentation obvious Faretta California, 806, 834, 2525, 2540, 562 (1975), personal." interests, freedom, stake. Counsel assist effectively work closely formulating strategy. disclose embarrassing intimate information view uninhibited communication communications generally privileged. Upjohn Co. 449 383, 389, 101 677, 682, 66 584 (1981). likely number decisions throughout range subjects consultation defendant. These best made, duties discharged, characterized trust confidence.4 65 appellate Releford 288 298 1961), hospitalized. Instead granting secure substitute choice, another objections reluctance. 299-301. deprived choice. 301-302. 67 Gandy 569 1318 (CA5 1978), process retained. rendered fundamentally unfair [the defendant] choose 1327. Linton Perini, 656 207, 209-211 (CA6 1981); Seale, 345, 356-361 (CA7 1972); Lee U.S.App.D.C. 272, 274, 235 219, 221 (1956). Cf. Burton, 189 327, 330-334, 485, 488-492 Giacalone Lucas, 445 1238, 1240 1971). 68 Admittedly, discussed above distinction, sufficient preclude who relationship. Nothing defendants makes relationships attorneys less important, deserving protection, those wealthy defendants. different Griffin Illinois, 351 12, 76 585, 100 891 (1956), "[t]here equal man gets depends money has." 19, 590 (plurality opinion). Undoubtedly, accept harsh reality frequently turn retain buy. wants preserve already perceive rational possible.5 69 Smith Cal.2d 547, Cal.Rptr. 440 P.2d (1968), considered mandate compel vacate removing pending murder power remove court-appointed decision doubts competence. 562, Cal.Rptr., 11, P.2d, 75. argument pay cause removal currently handling competent. 70 "But elementary: involves casual member bar, planning culminates particularly essential, defending client's life liberty. Furthermore, source compensation, responsibility undertaken individual agency pays service. follows once volunteer private parties enter inviolable To subject unwarranted invidious discrimination arising poverty accused." 561-562, 10, 74 omitted).6 71 recognizing qualified eminently sensible. expresses available, obligation public's expeditious Contrary suggestion, 13-14, guarantee" attorney-defendant "rapport." indication developed. relationship, developed, duty determine existing preserved consistent society's interests. minimal burden. readily impose insure denied. afforded absolute protection. unavailable extended period, factors exist tip favor absence,7 Such traditional "abuse discretion" standard. critical. 3. inquiry discharge "duty fundamental 72, 465. 73 concluding issuance not. Ibid.8 specific acts omissions prejudiced relief granted. claim. deprivation "counsel functions—from forming exploiting [respondent]." analogous (1978), (1976), (1963), (1942), (1932), discharging functions required. reasoning persuasive. reached similar contexts. 211-212; 302; Harling 387 A.2d 1101, 1106 (D.C.1978). here, might Requiring appropriate assess performance effect records them. reasonable judgments regarding involving judgments. fact appear, means base problem joint conflicting "[I]n interests evil advocate finds compelled refrain doing, pretrial plea negotiations sentencing identify resulting undertake certain tasks, available difficult intelligently impact conflict client. And options, tactics, virtually impossible. Thus, harmless require, unlike unguided speculation." 490-491, 1181-1182 original). character changed, decisions, strategy Conclusions inquiries questions "unguided Under circumstances, prejudice.9 While reflects thoughtful dedicated effort they enforcement procedural substantive guaranteed Constitution.10 commended, criticized, carrying respect entitlement. 78 BLACKMUN, STEVENS 79 narrow inquired incapacitation Absent postpone illness, unavailability. reason, 80 that, "[h]ad Amendment." examining carefully finding "dispositive," 4, similarly "no consider" issue. broad-ranging dicta (deserving sympathy be) Cal.Pen.Code Ann. § 261, subd. (West 1970); copulation, 288a degree 459 211a imprisonment, 236 1970). charged, retired begin deliberations, open chambers conference testify, bad faith: convinced. All you're trying appeal 52. undertook confine faith. asserted, demonstrates sincerity Slappy's contended Slappy acting [T]here motivated improper purpose." Morris, 722 affords "findings" By contrast, State asserts "always demanded Brief Petitioner closing instructed. believed equivalent consequence, "meaningful" Our disposes argument. "nothing [could] "same obtain faith." limited attempt ascertain appear Unlike endorse gratuitous disagreement, Bar Association Standards Criminal "[d]efense seek 4-3.1(a) (2d ed. 1980) (hereinafter Standards). suggest "[n]othing lawyer-client establishment confidence." 4.29 (commentary). 207 1981), "[b]asic cornerstone adversary 212. Similarly, 219 '[t]he highly confidential, demanding personal together harmoniously.' 5, 221, arguable like distinguishable largely nonindigent enjoy. considerations State's economy efficiency, Tague, An Indigent's Right Attorney His Choice, Stan.L.Rev. (1974), confidence. recognize afford protection jurisdiction sufficiently structure defender's office, impractical, jurisdictions, refuse decide overcome 1101 "[c]ounsel proceedings." 5-5.2. continuity "affords development confidential 5.54 (commentary), programs "stage" "horizontal" used. state: "Representation establishes Removal therefore occur objection client." 5-5.3. law, "[t]o removed impecunious regardless unjustified poverty." 5.58 supra. "holding" "there .," question. 14, 6. difference requirement suffer That light, above, assume produces requiring qualify analysis respect. period existed reasonable, engage harmless. longer prejudiced. Although acknowledges "inconvenience accused," nonetheless appears established suggestion cases.

Category: 0