Court Opinion

ID: 9697284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:11:05.039071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:30.699014
License: Public Domain

Bruñe, C. J.,
filed the following dissenting opinion.
In my estimation this case was one in which the appellant should have had counsel. Counsel was in fact appointed for him, but not until just before the case was scheduled to go on trial; and then the same counsel who had previously been appointed to represent the appellant’s co-defendant, Vass, was also appointed to represent the appellant, Pressley. Two questions arise in connection with this appointment—a possi*565ble conflict of interest between the two defendants and the shortness of time available for consultation—both of which are accentuated by the legal questions incident to the testimony of the co-defendant, who would be an accomplice if Pressley were a participant in the larceny. See Cash v. Culver, 358 U. S. 633.
The conflict of interest was, I think, more than theoretical. Vass’ statement to the police implicated Pressley as the moving spirit in the larceny. I believe that Vass might have been expected to plead guilty himself and, if Pressley stood trial, to testify against the latter on the charge of receiving stolen goods as well as on the larceny charge. Their joint counsel would scarcely have been in a position to challenge Vass’ testimony or to attack his credibility on the basis of his past criminal record, or otherwise. Quite possibly, the evidence against Pressley on the receiving charge would have been sufficient to convict him even without Vass’ testimony, and undoubtedly their joint counsel so believed. It is, however, my opinion that Pressley should have had the benefit of the legal advice of counsel other than the lawyer already appointed to represent Vass. It is also my opinion that the time allowed for consultation was unduly short, even after allowing for counsel’s familiarity with Vass’ version of the case.
Because of the seriousness of the offenses charged and because the legal questions arising out of the prospective testimony of an accomplice were such as would not ordinarily be within the knowledge of a layman (Cash v. Culver, supra), the need for counsel is, I think, apparent. The need for independent counsel also seems to me to have been present (Wright v. Johnson, 77 F. Supp. 687). Because of the legal problems involved, I do not think that Pressley should be charged, by reason of his silence, with having made an understanding waiver of any right to independent counsel and to adequate time for consultation with counsel. Hence it seems to me that his present contention could be raised on appeal.
I, therefore, think that the judgment should have been reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.