Court Opinion

ID: 9451180
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:09:07.620917+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:36.223538
License: Public Domain

HAMLEY, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) :
The district court stated in its opinion, among other things:
“This Court is inclined to believe that the attorney at least implied to the family, in order to induce them to put up the $3,000, that because of his special ‘contacts’ he could provide helpful services, albeit illegal, which would enhance the possibility that petitioner would get off with a relatively light sentence. Most likely these implications were in the form of ‘puffing’ the worth of his services rather than an out and out offer to participate in a conspiracy to bribe. However, it seems clear that the payment of the $3,000 was agreed to by the family in the belief that the money would be used to ‘pay-off’ the narcotics agent and that a ‘fix’ would be arranged.” (238 F.Supp., at 547)
* * *
“At no time did the attorney attempt to utilize any illegal means to ‘fix’ the ease.” (238 F.Supp., at 548)
*
“The testimony is in sharp conflict so far as the relationship between the attorney and petitioner’s family is concerned. Very likely there was misrepresentation by the attorney. However, with regard to petitioner, his testimony is that he never really believed the attorney’s story regarding a bribe, that he thought this was just a means being used by the attorney to obtain a fee. In other words, petitioner was not misled by the attorney.” (238 F. Supp., at 549)
In my view, the circumstances revealed in the quoted portion of the district court opinion and as related in the majority opinion demonstrate that appellant did'not have adequate representation by counsel at his trial.
Where such representation is inadequate because tainted with grossly improper conduct I perceive no room for applying a “clean hands” doctrine for the purpose of letting the judgment stand. “Clean hands” is a doctrine of the law of equity; here we are dealing with constitutional rights in a federal criminal prosecution. Very few defendants come into federal criminal courts with clean hands. The Sixth Amendment is available to all defendants.
With due deference, I feel that whenever federal judicial processes, including *276the conduct of attorneys as officers of the court, have been, as here, contaminated by fraud, the integrity of the system can be vindicated only by starting over. I would reverse.