Court Opinion

ID: 9450534
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:51:08.665956+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:22.040829
License: Public Domain

LUMBARD, Chief Judge, with whom WATERMAN and KAUFMAN, Circuit Judges,
join (concurring).
While concurring in Judge Hays’ opinion for the court, I wish to add a brief word. In our decision in Burroughs Bldg. Material Co. v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 47 F.2d 178, 180 (1931), we disallowed expenses incurred in the unsuccessful defense of criminal charges on the ground that to do so would be contrary to public policy. In my opinion, there is no present basis for the claim that such disallowance is consistent with public policy; on the contrary, it seems clear to me that public policy now requires us to allow the deduction.
Since Burroughs was decided, the federal courts have given fuller meaning to the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees to every defendant the right to be represented by counsel.
*696In 1938 the Supreme Court held in Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461, that counsel must be -furnished an accused who is financially unable to retain his own counsel to defend him on federal charges. A few months ago Congress at long last realized that the right to counsel has little substance unless counsel is paid for his efforts and reimbursed for necessary expenses. Under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, which became law on August 20, 1964, a defendant who is found to be financially unable to provide counsel and defray defense expenses is now entitled to have such reasonable and necessary expenses paid by the government up to specified maximum amounts.
The assignment and compensation of counsel under the Criminal Justice Act do not depend on whether a defendant successfully asserts his innocence. Indeed, almost all of counsel’s labors ordinarily must be done and his expenses must be incurred before guilt or innocence is finally established. The defendant has the right to put the government to its proof, if he so elects. His right to counsel does not depend upon whether in fact he has a defense or whether it was reasonable to contest the charges. Surely it needs no argument to support the proposition that unless a defendant has the benefit of counsel who can give necessary attention to the charges and their defense — and in cases such as Tel-lier’s, this is usually a considerable task for conscientious counsel — he may not be in a position to make an intelligent and knowing decision as to whether or how to conduct a defense. Moreover, whether he stands trial or pleads guilty, he needs counsel who has thoroughly familiarized himself with the case and who can plead for his client in the light of such knowledge. If the compensation of counsel under the Criminal Justice Act does not depend on the success of the defense, it would seem to follow that the allowance of the deduction should not depend on the outcome in cases where the defendant is able to and does assume the financial burden of defending against criminal charges.
In holding that a financially able defendant may deduct as “ordinary and necessary” expenses the legal fees and expenses incurred in an unsuccessful defense, we are being consistent with a clearly evinced policy that a defendant be represented by counsel regardless of the ultimate success or failure of his defense.
As there is no provision of the tax laws which requires a contrary result, I agree that we should not impose an additional penalty on financially able defendants by refusing a deduction in such cases. The allowance of the deduction here sought is consonant with public policy and ought to be allowed. I think the teaching of Johnson v. Zerbst, supra, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963), and the Criminal Justice Act requires this result and that we are no longer bound by Burroughs.