Document: 488 U.S. 272 109 S.Ct. 594 102 L.Ed.2d 624 Donald Ray PERRY, Petitionerv.William D. LEEKE, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections, et al. No. 87-6325. Argued Nov. 8, 1988. Decided Jan. 10, 1989. Syllabus At the conclusion petitioner's direct testimony in his state-court trial for murder and related offenses, judge declared a 15-minute recess ordered that petitioner not be allowed to talk anyone, including lawyer, during break. In affirming conviction, Supreme Court ruled Geders v. United States, 425 80, 96 1330, 47 592—in which it was held court's order directing defendant consult attorney an overnight recess, called while on witness stand, violated Sixth Amendment right assistance counsel—did require reversal, since this had there emphasized fact would "normally confer" with counsel explicitly disclaimed any intent deal limitations imposed other circumstances. The state court that, normally, is permitted confer client between cross-examination. Subsequently, Federal District granted writ habeas corpus, but Appeals reversed. Although agreeing applied constitutional error occurred, disagreed lower ruling subjected violation need demonstrate prejudice have conviction set aside. concluded should stand because prejudicial under Strickland Washington, 466 668, 104 2052, 80 674, evidence against overwhelming no basis believing cross-examination been different he given opportunity recess. Held: 1. A showing essential component rule, light fundamental importance criminal defendant's represented by counsel. By citing distinguishing governmental interference denial virtue counsel's ineffective assistance, made clear complete government subject kind analysis appropriate determining whether quality lawyer's performance itself has constitutionally ineffective. Pp. 278-280. 2. However, Constitution does compel allow brief break testimony. It empirical predicate our system justice quite apart from question unethical "coaching," uncounseled witness, or nondefendant, following examination more likely lead discovery truth than time pause lawyer. Thus, although may permit such consultation individual cases, must nevertheless discretion maintain status quo virtual certainty conversation lawyer relate exclusively ongoing long interruption character normal occurs encompass matters discuss lawyer—such as availability witnesses, tactics, even possibility negotiating plea bargain—and discussions will inevitably include some consideration compromise basic instance. 280-285. 832 F.2d 837 (CA 4 1987) affirmed. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, JJ., joined, Parts I III KENNEDY, joined. filed concurring part, post, p. 285. MARSHALL, dissenting opinion, BRENNAN BLACKMUN, W. Gaston Fairey, Columbia, S.C., petitioner. J. Zelenka, respondents. Justice STEVENS Court. 1 592 (1976), we Today consider rule applies similar entered at beginning afternoon 2 * Petitioner tried convicted jury participating brutal murder, kidnaping, sexual assault. His defense taken active part abduction homicide participation assault product duress. Evidence offered behalf indicated mildly retarded nonviolent person who could easily influenced others. He took began testify own after lunch 3 testimony, and, without advance notice counsel, When resumed, moved mistrial. denied motion, explaining "was sense then ward entitled cured assisted helped approaching cross examination." App. 4-5. affirmed conviction. State Perry, 278 S.C. 490, 299 S.E.2d 324 (1983). controlling case normally stated "we do . circumstances." supra, U.S., 91, S.Ct., 1337. explained: 5 "We attach significance words 'normally confer.' Normally, examination. Should defendant, examination, request declare so might before begins, unhesitatingly deny request." 491-494, S.E.2d, 325-326. 6 Ness dissented. pointed out short routine therefore apply. Moreover, protecting far outweighs negligible value preventing "coaching" her recess.1 7 Thereafter, sought obtained federal corpus. Applying settled law Fourth Circuit, coached cross-examination, 17-19; see States Allen, 542 630, 633-634 cert. denied, 430 908, 97 1179, 51 584 (1977); Stubbs Bordenkircher, 689 1205, 1206-1207 (1982), 461 907, 103 1879, 76 810 8 Appeals, sitting en banc, (1987). agreed prejudicial. This rested view opinions Cronic, 648, 2039, 657 (1984), 674 implied errors pose threat fair reversal automatic. After review record, found "overwhelming," F.2d, 843, 9 Four judges They argued properly interpreted earlier Circuit cases automatic majority's reliance misplaced inquiry employed determine occurred—not consequences acknowledged violation. they reasoned particularly inappropriate context almost private 10 Because presented only important, also one frequently arises,2 certiorari, 485 976, 108 1269, 99 480 (1988). II 11 There merit argument announced Geders. case, simply reversed pausing extent actual prejudice, if any, resulted access That consistent often expressed concerning counsel.3 See, e.g., 653-654, 2043-2044; Chapman California, 386 18, 23, n. 87 824, 827-828, 17 705 (1967); Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 83 792, 799 (1963); Glasser 315 60, 76, 62 457, 467-468, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). 12 disposition later decision considered standard legal inadequate effectively deprived protections guaranteed Amendment. passing claims " 'actual ineffectiveness,' id., 686, 2064, "benchmark conduct undermined proper functioning adversarial process cannot relied having produced just result." Ibid. More specifically, show "that deficient" "the deficient prejudiced defense." Id., 687, 2064. Prior measuring work, however, expressly noted matter. wrote: "Government violates effective when interferes certain ways ability make independent decisions about how defense. [96 592] (1976) (bar attorney-client recess); Herring New York, 422 853 [95 2550, 45 593] (1975) summation bench trial); Brooks Tennessee, 406 605, 612-613 [92 1891, 1895, 32 358] (1972) (requirement first witness); Ferguson Georgia, 365 570, 593-596 [81 756, 768-770, 783] (1961) defendant). Counsel, can deprive failing render 'adequate assistance,' Cuyler Sullivan, 446 [335] 344 [100 1708, 1716, 64 333 (1980) ]. 345-350 1716-1719] (actual conflict interest adversely affecting renders ineffective)." 2063-2064. 13 Our citation intended "[a]ctual constructive altogether," 692, 2063-2064, See Penson Ohio, 75, 88, 346, 352, 300 (1988); 659, 25, 2047, 25. accept rationale Appeals' decision. 14 We are persuaded, underlying testimony—a carefully preserved Geders—was correctly resolved Admittedly, line facts thin one. is, dimension. contrary views member 1, rests assumption engage "coaching." 15 distinction instead becomes testifying. absolute begins testify, neither nor interrupted give him benefit advice. 16 reason all witnesses defendants. common practice instruct third parties until completed.4 Such nondiscussion orders corollary broader sequestered lessen danger their hearing what say, increase likelihood confine themselves truthful statements based recollections.5 confront immunizes physical sequestration.6 Nevertheless, assumes role rules generally apply witnesses—rules serve truth-seeking function trial—are applicable well. Accordingly, entirely decide, listening elicit responses goes forward allowing parties, words, impeded Cross-examination depends its effectiveness punch holes witness' time, way. Permitting grants regroup regain poise strategy unaided possess. true assume deceit witness; adversary rather inquisitorial attorney. "Once places himself very heart process, comports fairness story measured accuracy completeness uninfluenced cross-examination." DiLapi, 651 140, 151 (CA2 1981) (Mishler, concurring), 455 938, 1427, 1428, 71 648 (1982).7 18 unquestioned power refuse close testimony—or point witness—we think As said, believe process. 19 go beyond content testimony—matters bargain. unrestricted advice variety trial-related 1335. right. But presume nothing discussed, testifying 20 mean forbid recesses. matter judges, indeed, well consultation.8 merely hold every progress decides good interrupt few minutes. judgment 21 Affirmed. 22 part. 23 join Court's holding ruling, unnecessary shown denied. address issue, decline Part opinion. 24 whom BLACKMUN join, dissenting. 25 unanimously judge's barring conferring majority holds today "short," unlike "long recess" Geders, Ante, 284. logical grounding, recondite understanding system, dissent. 26 Contrary holding, forbids "any communication attorney, least where interfere orderly expeditious trial." 92, 1337 (MARSHALL, concurring) (emphasis original). hardly novel; contrary, issue banc 837, 839 (1987), bar attorney-defendant contact, impermissible objected Sanders Lane, 861 1033, 1039 (CA7 1988) (collecting cases). With exceptions, appellate courts addressed agreed. attempts sidestep point, stating "[f]ederal varying constitutionality recess." 277, added). To disagreement courts, limited separate predicated harmless-error analysis—the sole certiorari case. 27 concluding violate Amendment, faithfully reflected long-expressed Assistance Counsel" perforce includes aspects case: 28 'The heard be, many little avail did comprehend [A defendant] unfamiliar evidence. lacks both skill knowledge adequately prepare defense, though [may] perfect requires guiding hand step proceedings him.' Powell Alabama, 287 45, 68-69 [53 55, 64, 77 158] (1932), quoted 88-89, 1335-1336. 29 Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 462-463, 58 1019, 1022, 82 1461 (1938); 343-345, 796-797, Wade, 388 218, 224, 1926, 1930-1931, 1149 Argersinger Hamlin, 407 31-36, 92 2006, 2009-2012, 530 (1972); (1984). stands proposition aid each critical stage conspicuously absent omission legacy glaring "[i]t difficult perceive taking guilt." Green Arn, 809 1257, 1263 (CA6 1987). Instead, obligatory nod head nature strings together several unstated assumptions unsupported assertions concludes recesses completely barred disserve trial's function. conclusory approach ill befits important rights stake A. 30 "has testifying." 281 truism beside point. Neither Perry Perry's "testimony advice," ibid.; suggested interruption. involves desire 31 further blurs real describing defendants lawyers "broader sequestered." provides lengthy footnote contains citations discussing purposes sequestration. 281, 4. flaw logic sequestration inapplicable Defendants, acknowledges, enjoy them. 282; false premise—that "while testifying"—naturally conjures up greater-includes-the-lesser argument: testimony; reasonable expectation provided judge. Yet, rejected facile There, justify ground "accident" 83, 1333, dismissing notion, frame occur course asked consultations 1335; 1036, 1; 849, (Winter, dissenting). 33 recognizes dispositive interrupt, legitimacy speak interruption, grounding general "rul[e]" forbidding attorney-witness contact 282. "rule," told, lawyer." "rule" contends, takes nonparty "generally well." 34 defects reasoning manifold. place, cites authority whatsoever "rule." Even exists, presence undercuts suggestion unreasonable able One look honored breach. three were testifying, Tr. 213, 274, 517; two these came end begun. 517. During none order. State's thus free prosecutors, breaks. Similarly, nearly cited collection post-Geders ante, 277—279, 2, indication speaking prosecutor attorneys 35 correct routinely lumping still flawed, ignores pivotal accords above those accorded generally.2 recognized unique Geders: defendant. ordinarily little, counsel; 148 ("The cautioned anyone prohibition upon defendant-lawyer conversations").3 majority, haste, overlooks axiomatic distinction.4 B 36 most troubling aspect assertion "short" invariably retard trial. notion described "empirical predicate" 282, shred support it. Furthermore, fails acknowledge never equated mandated evasion truth. 37 Central doctrine representation enhances better enables put proof. author today's wrote Term: 38 "The paramount vigorous follows justice. premised well-tested principle truth—as fairness—is 'best discovered powerful sides question.' Absent representation, unlikely test government's for, Sutherland '[e]ven intelligent educated layman small sometimes science law.' 69 64]." 84, (1988) (citations omitted). 39 Nowhere turns discussion place. 684-686, 2062-2064, (1984); 653-657, 2043-2046; Polk County Dodson, 454 312, 318-319, 445, 450, 70 509 (1981); 853, 857-858, 862, 95 2553, 2555, 593 (1975). 40 mind, persuasively "regain[s] strategy" If so, issued 17-hour sustained. Indeed, extreme, trial, justifiable. Surely greater success "punch[ing] holes," ibid., assured "an [does] possess." face punch-drunk thinks contributes search truth.5 41 fears deleterious effects vastly overstated. Vigorous certainly indispensable discerning trustworthiness soothing agitated nervous facing awesome calming seem especially apparent describes "mildly retarded," life.6 remind questions implicate self-incrimination previously excluded evidence, caution mind demeanor times, brace "legal engine" steaming 283, 7, quoting Wigmore, § 1367 (J. Chadbourn rev. 1974). sort necessarily threaten circumstances, remember sacrificed name obscure principle—a command hangs balance. 1336. 42 appears inconsistent truth," finds regarding pernicious. cases. did, remain inscrutable. distinguishes "long" recesses, "appropriate presume," or, alternatively, "a certainty," 284, focus upcoming Once again, reasons assertion; offers buttress proposition. While validity respect else parties' attorneys, 1335, defies argue conversations bargain," cannot, not, take place relatively 43 For example, location helpful mere seconds convey information sound strategy, new impact directly approach, learn steps down stand. Alternatively, discouraged conclude attempt negotiations prosecution immediately, outstanding bargain offer. discussed advisability pleading guilty. forever lost, issues conducts successful These examples tactical exchanges midtrial; predominantly "may entail deprivation fifteen minutes here devote vast extended preparation next day sending home sleep, back jail." 849 dissenting).7 44 Yet another perverse recognition "constitutional right" "matters testimony." Having right, expect brief, discussed. suggests stature, surely deserve protection today. [went] [Perry's] testimony," 284; was, ban consultations, nontestimonial matters, needlessly fires grapeshot where, reasoning, single bullet sufficed.8 Today's regrettable respects. practical terms, leaves "to guess she committed violation" 1037. Is presume" 30-minute involve matters? How break? Does promised client? redirect concluded? abstract inquiries, arisen, continue arise, basis. 1036-1037 providing framework answer questions, ensures defendants, adjoining courtrooms, practices. inconsistency untenable stake. 46 standardless guarantees bout litigation ineluctably conflicting Given "clarification feasible," Ross, 456 798, 804, 2157, 2162, 72 572 indisputably desirable area law, willingness tolerate ambiguity dismaying. 633 (CA4 1976). purports draw "line dimension," 280, faced continuum possibilities, find impossible discern. Finally, marks lapse commitment wholly uneven imposition orders. No suddenly became concerned "cured being unfairly singled out, responded felt compelled act ensure, things, "fairness state." 5. peculiar obligation meant removed courtroom incommunicado duration recess.9 48 Needless due concerns underpinning designed ensure State. 684-685, 2063; 653-656, 2043-2045; Morrison, 449 361, 364, 101 665, 667, 66 564 (1981). ensuring concomitant communicate proceedings, 68-69, 53 158 seeks minimize imbalance system." Ash, 413 300, 309, 93 2568, 2573, 619 (1973). twice disserves noble goal—by isolating perhaps needed, ignoring stark unfairness according prerogatives restriction "I agree [United ] [542 630 (1977) ], interfered length compelling reason. 1205 (4th Cir.1982) [,cert. (1983) court-ordered worst justice, i.e., urge clients lie oath. am unwilling cynical assumption, my belief seriously ethical obligations officers court. "Even made, opposing weapons combat cross-examine 'coaching,' completed. Additionally, determined invent polish trial; thus, benefits depriving restricting 495-497, 327-328 (dissenting opinion). 1033 (denial lunchtime harmless); Bova Dugger, 858 1539, 1540 (CA11 (15-minute "sufficiently meaningful counsel" cross-examination); Crutchfield 803 1103 1986) (en banc) (6 indicates, per se violation; near objection raised constitute exist actually desired confer, gain postconviction relief), 483 1008, 107 3235, 740 (1987); Mudd 255 U.S.App.D.C. 78, 79-83, 798 1509, 1510-1514 (1986) (order permitting client's weekend violation); Romano, 736 1432, 1435-1439 1984) (Sixth 5-day recess), vacated grounds, 755 1401 1985); Vasquez, 732 846, 847-848 (refusing adopt case," sidebar explanation counsel); 1982) impermissible, done restriction), (1983); Bailey Redman, 21, 22-25 (CA3 (no conferred order), 1153, 1024, 310 (1982); 147-149 5-minute violation, nonprejudicial case), 149-151 cross-examination; instead, Fifth Amendment's requirements govern rendered unfair); Conway, 632 641, 643-645 (CA5 1980) Bryant, 545 1035, 1036 1976) 632-634 ("[A] impermissible," stand), Ashurst State, 424 So.2d 691, 691-693 (Ala.Crim.App.1982) breaks Mebane, 204 Conn. 585, 529 A.2d (1987) 21-minute error), 484 1046-1047, 784, 98 870 956, 957-964 (Del.1980) prohibiting to, error, McFadden 918, 919-920 (Fla.App.1982) (error instructing over holiday harmless gave ample meet proceeding 410 1343, 1345 (Fla.1982) error); People Stroner, Ill.App.3d 5-6, 59 Ill.Dec. 764, 767, 432 N.E.2d 348, 351 (1982) aff'd rev'd Ill.2d 204, 722, 1326 Wooten-Bey Md.App. 603, 607-616, 547 1086, 1088-1092 denying left stand); Hagen, A.D.2d 617, N.Y.S.2d 91 still-testifying recess). Const., Amdt. ("In prosecutions, accused shall Counsel defence"). Jerry Parks Equipment Co. Southeast Co., 817 340, 342-343 (improper Greschner, 802 373, 375-376 (CA10 (circumvention "witnesses indirectly defeat purpose events testify"), 1353, 94 523 Johnston, 578 1352, 1355 (CA10) (exclusion "time-honored prevent shaping say"; avoid circumvention "making occurred courtroom"), 439 931, 321, 325 (1978); Milanovich 275 716, 720 1960) ("[O]rdinarily, exercises exclude courtroom, making exclusion accomplish result comparing give. communicating largely destroyed"), aside 551, 81 728, 773 (1961). §§ 1837-1838 1976 Supp.1988); Fed.Rule Evid. 615, "Exclusion Witnesses." confronted him"); also, Coy Iowa, 487 1012, 1016, 2798, 2800, 857 ("We doubted Confrontation Clause face-to-face meeting appearing trier fact"). original): "[W]e account construing guarantee age-old tool ferreting "For centuries past, policy Anglo-American regard necessity testing vital feature law." ' (Chadbourn English judicial continuing inception direct, consistently behalf, into credibility Cf. 1974) (calling greatest engine ever invented truth"); Weinstein, ¶ 800[01] (cross-examination, 'vital feature' system," 'sheds perception, memory narration,' "can expose inconsistencies, incompletenesses, inaccuracies testimony"). Ill.App.3d, Ill.Dec., N.E.2d, C.J.S., Criminal Law 1025 (1961); ex rel. Lovinger 19th Judicial 652 F.Supp. 1336, 1346 (ND Ill.1987), aff'd, 845 739 1988); Griffin 383 873, 878-879 (Ala.Crim.App.1980); Pendleton, 75 580, 594-595, 294, 304-305, 394 496, 506-507 (1979); cf. 633, ("While sequestering ancient origin universal, influencing feared much others"). Likewise, equation "third parties," misapprehends rights. Rock Arkansas, 44, 57-58, 15, 2704, 2712, 71, 465, recognize like witnesses. escaped him, justified "no Mr. Perry. 6th head. errs, furthermore, assuming, same E. Cleary, McCormick 21-26 (3d ed. (discussing permissible scope witnesses); 41-44 subjects impeached); 130-140 invoke testifying); compare 404(a)(1) (character accused) 404(a)(3) witness). "res[t] coaching." 281. Nonetheless, inclined "regain motivated, suspicion fail "respect difference improper influence." 90, 3, (1976). "If design," observe responsibilities client." 93, 1338 concurring); ("[A]ll administration probability counseling, evade distort truth, cases"). psychologist psychiatrist testified personality mental health. years old, I.Q. 86, encountered learning difficulties school, dropped ninth grade, childlike personality. difficulty reality fantasy suffered "hysterical reaction," inability cope stressful situations. 1048-1049, 1053-1054, 1087, 1091-1098. treatment exacerbated fright trepidation. sua sponte attempted "answer sure understood 7. order, prevented doing so. "taken placed room window person, chair, enclosed six room, to." Oral Arg. 8. Apparently, explain why Treatment adverse effect retain composure truthfully Chief Judge Winter observed: "Few categories undermine warrant proof particular Denial category error. Whether spans entire fraction thereof, suspect obtained." 845. possible distinguish sure. Assume, inadvertently elicits damaging neutralized called, ensuing Without chance hampered knowing advisable. failure spell difference—if one—between testimonial "have chilling cautious giving non-testimonial fear violating [a matters]." 81, 1512 (1986). addition wife completed husband. Defense protested "this state's state. And again bias Court." 904. rebuffed objection: don't apologize I'm charge going remains parties."

Category: 0