Court Opinion

ID: 9685338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:32:15.51991+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:26.710779
License: Public Domain

Mallett, C.J.
I respectfully dissent from parts n through v of the majority opinion. Counsel’s disciplinary suspension precluded him from preparing defendant Mitchell’s defense during the critical period leading to his first-degree murder trial. Mr. Mitchell’s repeated attempts to obtain substitute counsel went unheeded and his trial began, as scheduled, on the morning that his attorney’s suspension expired. Consequently, defendant was denied the assistance of counsel during the critical period leading to trial.
I would hold that the specific facts of this case justify a presumption of ineffectiveness without inquiry into actual performance or prejudice. United States v *179Cronic, 466 US 648, 653; 104 S Ct 2039; 80 L Ed 2d 657 (1984), Powell v Alabama, 287 US 45; 53 S Ct 55; 77 L Ed 158 (1932). I would therefore reverse the Court of Appeals decision and remand for a new trial.
i
BACKGROUND
The prosecution’s theory was that the defendant was the leader of a drug-trafficking ring and that he had been effectively in charge of all that took place in his apartment on the night of Raymond Harlin’s death. Defendant was depicted by the prosecution witnesses as a midlevel drug dealer. His apartment allegedly served as a wholesale warehouse for several street-level sellers who conducted illicit drug sales in the first floor lobby of the apartment building. Harlin had allegedly been working for the defendant.
The pertinent events surrounding Mr. Harlin’s death occurred in the defendant’s apartment about 10:00 P.M. Those initially present were defendant Mitchell, Mr. Harlin, codefendant Antonio Moore, and two friends of the defendant, Serena Nelson and Brent Woodson. There was no evidence that either Nelson or Wood-son were involved in the alleged drug ring.
The only evidence at trial concerning the start of the altercation was the statement Mr. Mitchell gave to the police indicating that the fight had started in the kitchen after Moore had become angry at the way the victim was staring at him. At the Ginther1 hearing, Woodson and Nelson also testified that the fight had broken out between Moore and Harlin in the kitchen over somebody looking at somebody strangely or *180making someone feel uncomfortable. Woodson testified that he never saw Mr. Mitchell participating in the fight, nor did he hear him encouraging anyone to shoot anyone else. Nelson and Woodson left the apartment some time after the altercation began and shortly after Tyrone Thompson and Richard Puryear arrived.
Both Thompson and Puryear testified at the trial. They were involved in drug sales from the apartment lobby, although, apparently, the defendant was not their supplier. Thompson, the prosecution’s primary witness, testified that Harlin was already bloodied when he arrived at the apartment. He stated that a gun was in plain view on a window ledge and that he took possession of the gun out of fear that the defendant would shoot Harlin. At the Ginther hearing, Nelson and Woodson disputed this testimony, both indicating tli&t they never saw a gun in plain view on the window sill and that Thompson had the weapon in his , possession when he entered the apartment.
Thompson testified that he heard the defendant exclaim, “Shoot a hole in his heart.”2 Soon after this occurred, codefendant Lamont Mason, who ultimately fired the shots, and Nehemiah Anderson arrived. Apparently, Mason was involved in the defendant’s drug business and Anderson had come to the building to purchase drugs. Thompson testified that by the time Mason arrived, he thought that the situation was calming down. Consequently, he laid down the gun that he had been holding. To his surprise, after laying *181down the gun, Mason picked it up and shot Harlin in the neck and back.
Harlin jumped out the third floor window. Amazingly, he was able to summon a cab, taking it to Henry Ford Hospital where he later died of gunshot wounds of the neck and back.
Defendants Mitchell, Mason, and Moore were all charged with first-degree murder. Mason and Moore moved for separate trials. The court ruled that separate juries would hear defendant Mitchell’s and codefendant Mason’s cases, while codefendant Moore opted for a bench trial.
The defendant did not testify or present any witnesses. At the close of proofs, his attorney moved for a directed verdict. The court partially granted the motion by reducing the charge to second-degree murder. MCL 750.317; MSA 28.549. The jury convicted defendant of that charge. Lamont Mason, who everyone seems to agree fired the shots, was acquitted by his separate jury. The court found Antonio Moore, who according to the defendant and codefendant Mason, was the primary aggressor in Harlin’s beating, guilty of felonious assault and placed him on probation.
Defendant wrote numerous letters complaining about Mr. Evelyn’s representation. For example, in a letter to Judge Farmer he complained that “I have been locked up for 5 months and not once have my lawyer took time out to talk to me. . . . [I]f I can’t express to Gerald K. Evelyn what happen on the night this incentdent occur [sic], he will not know the best stradaegy [sic] of what and how to fight this case. ... I am tired of being in the dark & knowing he’s in the dark.” He also complained of not having *182his transcripts, of repeated efforts to contact counsel, and of counsel’s failure to file necessary pretrial motions.
A hearing was held on defendant’s complaints eleven days before the scheduled trial date. At the hearing, defendant requested a change in counsel and an adjournment to allow time for new counsel to prepare. He also informed the court of Mr. Evelyn’s disciplinary suspension. The court never ruled on Mr. Mitchell’s request, instead taking the motion under advisement in order to allow Mr. Evelyn to respond. Mr. Evelyn had been notified of the hearing, but neither he nor his law partner appeared.
Mr. Mitchell renewed his complaint on the second day of jury selection, after counsel failed to visit him as promised the previous evening. Defendant explained his concerns to the court:
Well, from the very beginning, you know, Mr. Evelyn promised to talk with me. He has failed to talk with me on every occasion that he promised. He has failed to make any motions for me, and he’s failed to talk with my mother, which she has written many letters and calls, and went to his office, also, left word with his secretary.
And he also showed up an hour late on my final conference and by him letting me know yesterday that he was going to come over and talk with me and by him failing to do that, I just, I just feel it’s just incompetent.
After the court asked if defendant’s complaint was that counsel had not visited him at the jail as many times as he would have liked, Mr. Mitchell responded, “Yes. Never seeing me at all.” Counsel responded by explaining that he had supplied defendant with all the records that he had requested. Although Mr. Mitchell agreed, he stated that reading the records without his *183counsel’s assistance left him feeling that he was being “misrepresented.” He further stated that “[t]he only time I meet him is in the courtroom, or brief discussion in the bullpen with plenty of other people in the bullpen. I just don’t see how courts can say that that’s true fairness.” Mr. Mitchell, who wore a hearing aid, also complained that when counsel met with him in the courtroom or in the bull pen, he had difficulty hearing most of what counsel said. After hearing these complaints and holding a lengthy discussion about motions that defendant felt should be made on his behalf and directing counsel to meet with defendant that afternoon, the court denied the motion for substitute counsel.
On the sixth day of trial, Mr. Evelyn acknowledged his receipt of a grievance filed by defendant with the Attorney Grievance Commission and formally requested to withdraw. For reasons discussed more fully in part IV, the request was denied.
After his conviction, the defendant and the prosecutor appealed. The Court of Appeals consolidated the appeals and remanded for a Ginther hearing. After the hearing, the Court rejected defendant’s Sixth Amendment claims, holding that Mr. Mitchell had not met the standard for ineffective assistance and had abandoned any claim of error by failing to continue his objection to counsel's performance midtrial.
After providing a brief overview of the right to the effective assistance of counsel in part II, part in will address how the circumstances in this case led to a denial per se of Mr. Mitchell’s Sixth Amendment rights. Finally, part iv will explain that Mr. Mitchell’s expression of satisfaction with counsel’s midtrial per*184formance cannot act to waive or abandon his ineffective assistance claim.
n
THE RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
The Sixth Amendment provides:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. [US Const, Am VI.]
Similarly, the Michigan Constitution states that, “[i]n every criminal prosecution, the accused shall have . . . assistance of counsel for his defense . . . .” Const 1963, art 1, § 20.
The constitutional guarantee of the assistance of counsel is a fundamental component of our criminal justice system. The assistance of a competent attorney is essential because it provides the means through which the other rights of the accused are secured. Consequently, without counsel’s assistance, the right to a trial would mean little. Cronic, supra at 653. Notable federal and Michigan jurists have long recognized the importance of the right to the assistance of counsel. Justice Sutherland, in his opinion in Powell, supra at 68-69, emphasized:
The right to be heard, would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of *185counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have, a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. [Emphasis added.]
Justice Cooley similarly noted the importance of the right, stating that “ ‘[p]erhaps the privilege most important to the person accused of crime, connected with his trial, is that to be defended by counsel.’ ” People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298, 311; 521 NW2d 797 (1994), quoting 1 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (8th ed), p 696.
Because of its great importance in our adversary system, the right to the assistance of counsel includes the right to the effective assistance of counsel. Cronic at 654, citing McMann v Richardson, 397 US 759, 771, n 14; 90 S Ct 1441; 25 L Ed 2d 763 (1970).
In People v Pickens, supra, a majority of this Court held that the Michigan constitutional guarantee of the right to the effective assistance of counsel is coextensive with its federal counterpart. Consequently, this Court applied the two-part test announced by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668; 104 S Ct 2052; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984). The Strickland test requires examining whether counsel’s errors fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and whether the errors so prejudiced the defendant so as to deprive him of a fair trial.
The Strickland performance/prejudice analysis is not the sole indicia of ineffective assistance. The United States Supreme Court in Cronic, supra, the *186companion case to Strickland, stated that the Sixth Amendment guarantee generally is not implicated unless there is some effect of counsel’s substandard performance on the reliability of the trial process. The Court in Cronic further explained that there are circumstances “so likely to prejudice the accused that the cost of litigating their effect in a particular case is unjustified.” Id. at 658. These circumstances include a complete denial of counsel at a critical stage of the proceedings, as occurred here, and a complete failure to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing. Another such circumstance, particularly applicable here, is “when although counsel is available to assist the accused during trial, the likelihood that any lawyer, even a fully competent one, could provide effective assistance is so small that a presumption of prejudice is appropriate without inquiry into the actual conduct of the trial.” Id. at 659-660. Finally, a presumption of prejudice attaches when the state or the court prevents counsel from rendering assistance by directly interfering with the attorney-client relationship. Geders v United States, 425 US 80; 96 S Ct 1330; 47 L Ed 2d 592 (1976).
I would find that under the per se approach discussed in Cronic and Geders, defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel.
m
PER SE STANDARD
When the surrounding circumstances make it so unlikely that any lawyer could provide effective assistance, ineffectiveness may be presumed without inquiry into actual performance or prejudice. Cronic *187at 661. As explained by the Court in Cronic, Powell v Alabama exemplifies this type of ineffectiveness.
In Powell, the United States Supreme Court relied on the Due Process Clause to find a denial of fundamental fairness to the “Scottsboro Boys,” nine illiterate young black men accused of capital rape in Alabama in 1931. Six days before trial, the judge appointed “all the members of the bar” to represent the defendants for purposes of arraignment. Id. at 49. On the day of trial, a lawyer from Tennessee appeared after speaking to persons “interested” in the case. However, he stated that because he was unprepared and unfamiliar with local procedure, he was unwilling to represent the defendants on such short notice. The trial court resolved the problem by deciding that the Tennessee lawyer would represent the defendants with assistance from the local bar and ordered that the trial begin as scheduled.
The United States Supreme Court held that “such designation of counsel as was attempted was either so indefinite or so close upon the trial as to amount to a denial of effective and substantial aid . . . .’’Id. at 53. Without examining the actual performance of counsel at trial, the Court concluded that under the circumstances, the trial was inherently unfair because the likelihood that counsel could have performed as an effective adversary was too remote. Critical to the Court’s analysis was counsel’s inability to prepare or to conduct pretrial investigation because of his appointment on the day of trial.
It is not enough to assume that counsel thus precipitated into the case thought there was no defense, and exercised their best judgment in proceeding to trial without preparation. Neither they nor the court could say what a prompt *188and thorough-going investigation might disclose as to the facts. No attempt was made to investigate. No opportunity to do so was given. Defendants were immediately hurried to trial. . . . Under the circumstances disclosed, we hold that defendants were not accorded the right of counsel in any substantial sense. To decide otherwise, would simply be to ignore actualities. [Id. at 58.]
These words apply forcefully to Mr. Evelyn’s representation of the defendant. As in Powell, the circumstances surrounding defendant’s representation precluded crucial trial preparation. As in Powell, defendant was hurried to trial on the same day that counsel was able to first provide any meaningful pretrial assistance. As in Powell, this Court cannot assume some feigned tactical reason for counsel’s failure to contact defendant while he was in prison or to otherwise investigate and interview witnesses during the critical thirty-four days before trial. Mr. Evelyn could not prepare for Mr. Mitchell’s defense, as a matter of law, because he was prevented from doing so by his disciplinary suspension.3
Other cases also illustrate circumstances justifying a presumption of ineffectiveness. A long line of federal and state precedent holds that Sixth Amendment *189rights are violated when the defendant is denied counsel at a critical stage in the proceedings. “Cronic and Strickland make clear that ‘where actual or constructive denial of assistance of counsel occurs a per se rale of prejudice applies.’ ” Crutchfield v Wainwright, 803 F2d 1103, 1108 (CA 11, 1986), quoting Chadwick v Green, 740 F2d 897, 900, n 3 (CA 11, 1984).4
In Geders, supra, the Court held that a trial court’s order preventing the defendant in a federal criminal prosecution from consulting his counsel “about anything” during a seventeen-hour recess in the trial between his direct and cross-examination deprived him of his right to the assistance of counsel. The Court emphasized that overnight recesses are often critical periods for preparation:
*190Such recesses are often times of intensive work, with tactical decisions to be made and strategies to be reviewed. The lawyer may need to obtain from his client information made relevant by the day’s testimony, or he may need to pursue inquiry along lines not fully explored earlier. [Geders at 88.]
This being the case, the Court found that prejudice was so likely to result from the overnight denial of access to counsel that a specific inquiry into prejudice would be superfluous.5
Denial of counsel midtrial is but one example of a Sixth Amendment violation per se on the grounds of denial at a critical stage. Powell, supra at 57, also emphasizes the importance of counsel during the pretrial stage:
[P]erhaps the most critical period of the proceedings against these defendants, that is to say, from the time of their arraignment until the beginning of their trial, when consultation, thorough-going investigation and preparation were vitally important, the defendants did not have the aid of counsel in any real sense, although they were as much entitled to such aid during that period as at the trial itself.
In this case, the criminal justice and attorney disciplinary systems, without a doubt, combined to deny Mr. Mitchell any assistance of counsel for a full thirty-four days leading to his trial. This denial was especially egregious because counsel had not previously *191conducted a private in-depth interview with his client to hear his account of the first-degree murder charge and because challenges to the admissibility of evidence had not been addressed and res gestae witnesses had not been contacted.6
This is not an instance where counsel chose to take no action. Rather, the circumstances of counsel’s disciplinary suspension and the trial court’s refusal to assist the defendant in obtaining substitute counsel combined to deprive the defendant of his Sixth Amendment rights by effectuating a total denial of counsel during the critical pretrial period. To hold otherwise would be to say that trial preparation and investigation, in the context of a first-degree murder trial, are not critical.7 Such a holding would also be *192contrary to the United States Supreme Court’s statements in Powell emphasizing the importance that adequate preparation plays in giving meaning to the right to counsel:
“It is vain to give the accused a day in court, with no opportunity to prepare for it, or to guarantee him counsel without giving the latter any opportunity to acquaint himself with the facts or law of the case.” [Id. at 59, quoting Commonwealth v O’Keefe, 298 Pa 169, 173; 148 A 73 (1929).]
The majority’s suggestion that a finding that prejudice should be presumed violates “controlling precedent” causes some concern and merits examination. Although unclear, the precedent the majority apparently refers to are cases such as Cronic and Strickland in which the Court concluded that the claims of inadequate preparation or investigation did not merit a presumption of prejudice. In this regard, the majority states, “[t]he Supreme Court has rejected a categorical prophylactic approach to claims of counsel’s deficient performance and of failure to adequately prepare or investigate in favor of an inquiry into actual performance and prejudice.” Ante at 158. On the other hand, the majority begrudgingly recognizes, in n 10, that in some circumstances, such as those present in Powell, prejudice will be presumed.
*193The fact that the majority reaches a different conclusion than the one I reach does not render either conclusion violative of controlling authority. This is because the disagreement does not concern the basic analytical framework. To the contrary, I agree with my respected sister’s premise that the cases concerning ineffective assistance of counsel represent a continuum. My disagreement lies in where this case falls on that continuum.
Contrary to the majority’s assertions, I do not contend that the thirty-day suspension alone warrants a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel per se or that a lack of preparation alone warrants a “categorical approach.” Rather, I believe that the suspension, combined with the surrounding circumstances and the gravity of the charge justify a presumption of prejudice in this particular case. To reiterate, the record discloses that defendant’s attorney was suspended from the practice of law for approximately thirty days before his trial began. The record further reveals that the defendant and his mother attempted to contact Mr. Evelyn on several occasions to arrange a meeting. Defendant also made numerous timely requests to the trial court to appoint him new counsel because he had not been able to tell his attorney his side of the case. In spite of all this, defendant was never able to meet privately with his attorney before trial after his preliminary examination, other than in the “bull pen” before hearings. Given the gravity of the charge, first-degree murder, and the constructive denial of counsel brought on by Mr. Evelyn’s suspension and the trial court’s refusal to appoint substitute counsel, defendant was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel per se.
*194The majority criticizes this analysis by focusing on one element at a time, in isolation, from the totality of circumstances leading to the constructive denial of counsel. Citing Morris v Slappy, 461 US 1; 103 S Ct 1610; 75 L Ed 2d 610 (1983), the majority concludes that denial of a 1983 continuance does not warrant a new trial. I agree that not every refusal of a continuance warrants a new trial, only those where there is an “unreasoning and arbitrary ‘insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a justifiable request for delay’ . . . .” Id. at 12-13. The majority also cites Cronic, in support of its conclusion that the thirty-day suspension is not an external constraint constituting a constructive denial of counsel and that allegations of deficient performance due to inadequate preparation time do not justify a presumption of prejudice. I agree that a thirty-day suspension alone, out of a seven-month period of representation, would not warrant the presumption. I also agree that not every case where an ill-prepared attorney is forced to trial will warrant the presumption. However, where all the circumstances attendant in this case combine, the whole is qualitatively different from each part taken in isolation. There is no “controlling precedent” in which all the particular circumstances present in this case combine, as they do here, to effectuate a denial of counsel in the critical pretrial period.8
*195IV
WATVER/ABANDONMENT OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL
The Court of Appeals concluded that by telling the trial judge six days into .the trial that he no longer wanted to pursue the grievance he had filed against his attorney because he was satisfied with counsel’s resolution of his concerns, defendant abandoned his ineffective assistance claim. Defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights cannot be so easily brushed aside. The issue whether defendant’s midtrial withdrawal of his grievance constitutes a waiver or abandonment of his ineffectiveness claim deserves a more searching analysis.
Defendant filed a grievance against Mr. Evelyn with the Attorney Grievance Commission, dated May 1, 1989. On the sixth day of trial, May 15, 1989, Mr. Evelyn moved to withdraw from the case in light of the grievance filed against him. The following colloquy, between Mr. Evelyn, Mr. Mitchell and the court ensued:
Mr. Evelyn: I just want to bring a matter to the Court’s attention. As Mr. Mitchell had indicated earlier in his request that I be removed, he did, in fact, file a grievance which I received in my office on Friday, and on Saturday I prepared a response which will go out today, and response includes my reference to the fact that we’re in trial and that I think the Canon of Ethics require that I at least make a motion to withdraw from the case at this time, if his position is that he’s still dissatisfied.
*196I should note for the record that a number of things, the grievance is dated May 1, so a number of things that he was concerned about have been addressed, I should indicate — I suppose that it’s possible that his position may have been changed in light of that fact, but I think he should have an opportunity to bring that to the Court’s attention and state on the record what his feelings are at this point.
I think that I have to formally request that I be removed from the case at this time.
The Court: Mr. Mitchell, anything you have to say?
Defendant Mitchell: Yes. I would like to, you know, cancel that grievance, you know, because all the motions and everything that I requested have been answered.
The Court: Okay. So your [sic] satisfied with your counsel?
Defendant Mitchell: Yes, I’m satisfied, your Honor.
The Court: All right, then, the motion to withdraw will be denied and well proceed.
Mr. Evelyn: Okay.
Defendant Mitchell: Thank you, your Honor.
A careful reading of this exchange does not comport with Mr. Mitchell waiving or abandoning his ineffective assistance claim concerning Mr. Evelyn’s lack of pretrial investigation and preparation. His statement that he was “satisfied” with counsel cannot be fairly read to mean he no longer believed that it was unjust and prejudicial to force him to begin trial with unprepared counsel. Read in its proper context, this “waiver” is nothing more than Mr. Mitchell’s indication that he was “satisfied” with the resolution of the motions he had formerly requested. A close reading of the exchange also suggests that Mr. Mitchell had decided, probably with counsel’s advice, to put aside his grievance in order to avoid aggravating the court by disrupting the trial’s progress, given that the court’s handling of defendant’s previous motion for *197new counsel made clear that the first priority was to keep the trial on schedule.
Even if Mr. Mitchell’s expression of “satisfaction” might be characterized as applying to his counsel’s pretrial representation, and not just to counsel’s efforts during the trial, the record does not support a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel during the pretrial stage. Mr. Mitchell’s motion for substitute counsel and his grievance regarding lack of pretrial representation clearly put the court on notice that he was not receiving the assistance of counsel during this critical stage. If the court intended to secure a retroactive waiver of defendant’s right to pretrial representation, it should have clearly informed defendant, on the record, that this was the intent.9
Here, defendant’s “waiver” was not knowingly and intelligently made because he was never apprised of the right that he was waiving. Before trial, faced with a total lack of representation on Mr. Evelyn’s part, defendant requested new counsel. The trial court did not resolve this request until the day of trial. Just before jury selection, when Mr. Mitchell again raised his right to effective representation, he was told that he could not have new counsel and that the trial *198would have to go forward. When Mr. Mitchell persisted that counsel had not interviewed him or heard his version of the events leading to the death, the court instructed him that he could tell his counsel anything he wished during the recess after the prosecutor’s opening argument. He then admonished Mr. Mitchell:
[I] don’t want to mislead you with the impression that just because you’re still dissatisfied with your attorney that the Court is going to discontinue the trial and appoint new counsel.
Clearly, rather than acknowledging defendant’s right to counsel during the critical pretrial stage, the court made clear that the trial would proceed regardless of defendant’s lack of pretrial assistance. The court’s handling of Mr. Evelyn’s motion to withdraw, relied on by the Court of Appeals, for Mr. Mitchell’s “waiver” of his Sixth Amendment rights, woefully failed to set forth on the record a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his right to pretrial assistance of counsel. Consequently, his expression of “satisfaction” cannot be construed as a valid waiver.
Further, as noted in Cronic, a defendant’s expression of satisfaction with counsel’s performance at the time of trial, or his later expression of dissatisfaction, is not determinative of an ineffective assistance claim. Id. at 657, n 21. The defendant in Cronic, as here, expressed his satisfaction with counsel during the course of the trial because this seemed to be the prudent thing to do at the time. See id. at 652, n 6. The Court noted, “we attach no weight to either respondent’s expression of satisfaction with counsel’s performance at the time of his trial, or to his later *199expression of dissatisfaction.” Id. at 657, n 21. Instead, the Court examined whether counsel's performance indeed met the standard required by the Sixth Amendment. Where constitutional rights are at issue, this Court must do no less.
v
CONCLUSION
I would hold that the circumstances of this case, particularly Mr. Evelyn’s failure to prepare for defendant’s trial for first-degree murder, attributable in part to his disciplinary suspension, and the trial court’s failure to grant defendant’s timely and reasonable request for new counsel combined to deprive Mr. Mitchell his right to the effective assistance of counsel under the per se standard explained in Cronic.
I would further hold that the defendant’s midtrial expression of satisfaction with his trial counsel was not a valid waiver or an abandonment of his Sixth Amendment rights.
Consequently, I would reverse and remand for a new trial.

 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436; 212 NW2d 922 (1973).

 The statement may have been, “[S]hoot the [whore] in the heart,” or, as defendant’s attorney contended, “I should shoot this [whore] in the heart.”

 Since Powell, other courts have held that a lack of preparation can constitute ineffectiveness per se. In State v Johnson, 24 Ohio St 3d 87; 494 NE2d 1061 (1986), the Supreme Court of Ohio held that failure to prepare for sentencing proceedings in a capital case was a violation per se of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights. The court noted counsel’s failure to investigate mitigating factors and his failure to discuss the penalty aspect of the case with his client before the sentencing hearing.
Similarly, in State v Anderson, 117 NJ Super 507; 285 A2d 234 (1971), modified on other grounds 60 NJ 437; 290 A2d 447 (1972), the Superior Court of New Jersey held that forcing a defendant to trial on the day that he first conversed with his defense attorney, and when counsel had done no other preparation, constituted ineffective assistance, without a specific finding of prejudice.

 The majority appears to suggest that only situations involving factors other than lack of preparation and investigation can justify application of a per se rule. Cronic’s numerous and lengthy references to Powell irrefutably dispute this and make clear that the question whether lack of preparation and investigation justify a per se rule is one of degree. In this regard, Cronic and Strickland are factually distinguishable from the present case.
Cronic involved a young, fairly inexperienced attorney appointed to represent a defendant against mail fraud charges twenty-five days before trial. After careful analysis regarding the adequacy of the allowed preparation time, the court concluded that twenty-five days was “not so short that it even arguably justifies a presumption that no lawyer could provide the respondent with the effective assistance of counsel . Id. at 665. Clearly, the present case is more akin to Powell than to Cronic in regard to the circumstances surrounding the trial and the available preparation time.
Strickland is likewise distinguishable. It involved an attorney who, in preparing for a sentencing hearing, did not seek out character witnesses or request a psychiatric examination. Rather than determining that an insufficient investigation can never constitute ineffectiveness per se, the Court in Strickland held that counsel’s decision not to present evidence concerning respondent’s character and emotional state constituted a reasonable trial strategy under the circumstances presented in that case. As pointed out elsewhere in this opinion, no reasonable trial strategy exists for Mr. Evelyn’s failure to investigate.

 See also Crutchfield v Wainwright, supra (holding that the right to counsel was violated by the trial court admonition not to speak with his attorney during a brief trial recess if the record shows that the defendant requested access to his attorney); State v Bryant, 545 F2d 1035 (CA 6, 1976) (holding that absent extraordinary circumstances, the right to assistance of counsel was violated where a trial court directs that the defendant not communicate with counsel during a noon recess).

 The majority relies in part on this Court’s decision in People v Pubrat, 451 Mich 589, 594-595; 548 NW2d 595 (1996), for its conclusion that Mr. Everett’s suspension during the critical pretrial stage does not require reversal. Pubrat, however, is distinguishable and has little relevance to the situation presented here. Pubrat involved a suspended attorney who continued to actively represent his client during the suspension. Mr. Evelyn did not provide any assistance to Mr. Mitchell during the period of his suspension, which extended through the critical pretrial stage and ended on the morning of trial. While I was troubled, in Pubrat, by counsel’s unauthorized representation, the situation here is qualitatively different and far more egregious from the defendant’s perspective. Rather than receiving questionable counsel from a suspended attorney, defendant Mitchell received no counsel at all during this period.

 I also note that Mr. Evelyn’s apparent ability to perform relatively well during trial is irrelevant in light of the constructive denial of counsel during the critical pretrial period. Although Evelyn might be a very gifted trial lawyer who knows full well the “rules of the game,” this cannot excuse the total lack of preparation. Defending a person in a first-degree murder trial is not a game. Effective representation must mean more than showing up and giving a good performance. If truth seeking is to play some role in our criminal justice system, defense attorneys must exert at least some effort to explore the truth so that, if there is exculpatory evidence available in favor of their client, they can present it.
I further note that Mr. Evelyn’s letter to defendant, indicating that he could contact his law partner, Myzell Sowell, for assistance during his suspension, does not excuse or eliminate the constructive denial of counsel. *192Mr. Mitchell viewed Evelyn as his attorney, not Mr. Sowell. When Evelyn failed to provide defendant with assistance during the pretrial stage, defendant repeatedly asked the court for assistance in obtaining new counsel. He legitimately expected that the court would provide such assistance. Additionally, his mother left numerous messages at the Sowell & Evelyn firm. If Sowell truly had been available, he would have initiated some contact with the defendant.

 In its failure to recognize that our disagreement lies in where on the continuum this case falls, the majority argues that “the dissent offers no analysis with respect to how [witnesses Nelson and Woodson] might have made a difference at trial.” Ante at 163. Given the conclusion that the circumstances justify a presumption of prejudice, there is no need to offer such an analysis. A review of the facts, however, reveals that their testimony, as elicited at the Ginther hearing, would have at least undermined Mr. Thompson’s testimony, given that their account of the events leading up to the killing did not support Thompson’s portrayal of defendant as an *195instigator or director of the beating and subsequent killing. Further, their testimony differed from Mr. Thompson’s regarding the location and possession of the murder weapon and thus could have been useful to undermine Mr. Thompson’s testimony.

 In People v Lane, 453 Mich 132; 551 NW2d 382 (1996), this Court addressed the requirements of a valid waiver under MCR 6.005(D) at subsequent proceedings where a defendant had previously waived his right to counsel. This Court affirmed that the court should once again engage in the extensive Anderson litany, ensuring that the request to proceed without counsel is unequivocally, knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. People v Anderson, 398 Mich 361, 367-368; 247 NW2d 857 (1976). While neither the court rule nor the discussion in Lane addresses the requirements of a valid retroactive waiver, at least as much caution should be exercised. In fact, it could be argued that even more caution should be exercised in this context because of the possibility of confusion and misunderstanding inherent when rights are waived retroactively.