Court Opinion

ID: 9453306
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:09:26.549572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:36.135431
License: Public Domain

CRAVEN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
The court today puts upon the Commonwealth of Virginia what is to me a new and erroneous rule1 as to burden of proof, not supported by prior decisions of this or any other circuit. Except for the shift in the burden of proof the court’s decision that the performance of Cole's trial counsel was constitutionally *228ineffective would be demonstrably erroneous — which perhaps explains the expedient of adopting the new rule for this case. I do not suggest that courts are never justified in shifting burdens of proof. Where the facts are within the knowledge or reach of an adversary and not readily attainable by the other side, it is sometimes only just to do so. Cf. Chambers v. Hendersonville City Bd. of Educ., 364 F.2d 189 (4th Cir. 1966). But where that is not so I think federal courts should not tamper with well established state rules of procedure — absent some compelling reason not suggested in this record.
Virginia has what may be termed a homemade version of a public defender system. Mr. Dupuy and Mr. Smith were designated public defenders for three terms of court extending over a three-months period and assigned the responsibility of representing 57 indigent defendants during those three terms of court. The practice of the Hustings Court of the City of Richmond was to appoint private counsel for a period of time. Both Mr. Dupuy and Mr. Smith interviewed Alfred Coles and other indigents assigned to their responsibility, but it was never contemplated that both would actually appear for him and represent him at his trial. Instead, it was the practice that Mr. Dupuy would represent a given indigent in one court while Mr. Smith would represent another one in another division of the court. Although the state court order authorizing the representation of indigents by Mr. Dupuy and Mr. Smith was entered on August 20, 1963, both Dupuy and Smith testified that they actually began their duties in June of 1963, and the record is clear that Coles was represented as early as June 18 when a motion was made to have a psychiatric examination made of him. Du-puy interviewed Coles twice prior to the trial and again on the trial date. Smith participated only in the first two interviews. Dupuy represented Coles at the trial and Smith was not present.
I do not think the foregoing fact-situation supports an inference that the system was constitutionally inadequate,2 nor do I understand the court to so hold. Since Dupuy and Smith, in effect, divided the load, the result is that each one had a trial burden of 28 or 29 criminal cases spaced over a three-months period in three different terms of court. Although a heavy burden, it does not seem to me to be one so heavy that it can be said that effective representation was impossible or even improbable.
As for Mr. Dupuy’s conduct of the trial, the majority seems quite certain that he did those things he ought not to have done and left undone things that he should have done to the extent that Coles was denied the right to counsel. As shown below, such certitude is based in part upon relieving Coles of his proper burden of proof, thus enabling the court to implicitly assume some rather startling facts. I do not think the admitted imperfections, although serious, amount to a denial of counsel.
Errors and Omissions op Counsel
(1) Counsel did not explain the elements of the crime of forcible rape to Coles, including the necessity of proof of penetration. But Dupuy testified that Coles, 28 years old, admitted to him “that he had had intercourse with the woman,” and this testimony is uncontradicted.3 *229Since the majority concedes in footnote 2 on page 226 that the state habeas corpus judge accepted this testimony, that should be the end of the matter. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 as amended Nov. 2, 1966. The court concedes that counsel has no duty to fabricate a defense.
(2) Counsel made no attempt to interview Carrie Herbert or to determine what her testimony would be.4 The record does not indicate that Mrs. Herbert testified to anything other than that she heard a disturbance and screams and called the police. It was dark in the alley near Mrs. Herbert’s house and she apparently saw nothing. Since screams and a disturbance are as consistent with Coles’ version as with the prosecutrix’s version, Mr. Dupuy’s omission does not seem to me to be of any consequence.
(3) Counsel made no attempt to determine the identity of, or to interview, the prosecutrix’s male companion. Was there such a person? No one said so— except Coles — and he offered Mr. Dupuy no suggestion for finding him. Nor did Coles suggest to Mr. Dupuy the names of possible witnesses who might be subpoenaed. When Dupuy was asked at the state post-conviction hearing whether he made any investigation concerning this phantom5 witness, he gave what seems to me to be a sufficient answer to exonerate him of ineffective representation:
“I didn’t make any investigation because he [Coles] didn’t know who he was. Nobody that I heard of knew anything about him and I might as well have gone to India to pick out somebody.”
(4) Counsel made no investigation of the reputation of the prosecutrix for chastity.6 Unquestionably, representation might have been more effective had such an investigation been made. It was not done and has not been done to this very hour.7 But it is much easier for my brethren to suggest necessity for such an investigation than it is to make one. This is not a case where the defendant suggests to counsel the names of male persons who might be willing to testify to the prosecutrix’s promiscuity. Indeed, the record is bare of any suggestion that there existed anyone who would give her a bad character. Under these circumstances, Dupuy’s omission does not seem to me to be so gross as to amount to ineffective representation by counsel.8
The foregoing are the counts of the indictment leveled by the court against Mr. Dupuy. Without knowing whether in fact the petitioner Coles was prejudiced by Mr. Dupuy’s omissions, I am unwilling to hold that Dupuy’s representation was so woefully inadequate 9 as to amount to a denial by the state of Coles’ right to counsel. I am unwilling to assume as the court does (by its technique of switching the burden of proof) that (1) Carrie Herbert’s testimony would have been different and more favorable had she been interviewed before trial; (2) there was a male companion whose *230testimony would have been favorable; (3) prosecutrix’s reputation for chastity was bad.
Switching the burden of proof does not make these startling defenses true but it does put upon the state the exceedingly awkward, if not unbearable, burden of proving the negative. And it is not suggested that the state can prove the negative of such matters more easily than petitioner can prove the positive — the usual reason for switching the burden. Nor do these matters, in my opinion, fall within the category of constitutional defects that must be deemed inherently prejudicial because (1) we intuitively sense prejudice, and (2) the extent of it is simply not practicably susceptible to proof, such as (a) failure to have counsel assigned,10 (b) appointment of counsel followed immediately by trial,11 (c) division of responsibility among an entire bar (what’s everyone’s responsibility is no one’s responsibility).12 Except in such situations, and others of like kind, it is still true that “in most cases involving claims of due process deprivations we require a showing of identifiable prejudice to the accused.” Estes v. State of Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 542, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1632, 1633, 14 L.Ed.2d 543 (1965). I think the correct rule is that the burden of showing lack of prejudice falls on the state when, but only when, the petitioner has shown a set of facts that demonstrate prejudice to his defense, inherently or otherwise.
I do not read the court’s opinion as charging to Dupuy his ignorance of the existence of the medical report of the examination of prosecutrix. Apparently the majority shares my doubt that every “effective” lawyer in Richmond knew or should have known, prior to this case, that it was the uniform practice of the Richmond Police Department to have such a medical examination conducted of every woman who claimed to have been raped. Had Mr. Dupuy known of the report, I think it only fair to him to suggest that he would then have felt justified in raising a defense of non-penetration in spite of the admissions made to him by his client and apparently repeated in open court.
In Cardarella v. United States, 375 F.2d 222 (8th Cir. 1967), the prisoner urged that he was entitled to a new trial because his lawyer should have known of or discovered the existence of certain police reports. In dismissing the contention, the court said: “Even so, ‘lack of diligence’ in discovering evidence which was not used at the trial is not necessarily to be equated with ineffective assistance of counsel. Perfect or errorless counsel is not required as a prerequisite to a fair trial consonant with due process.” Id. at 232.
If the medical report is deemed to be exculpatory, and certainly its thrust is in that direction, and if the state suppressed or withheld it, there would appear to have been a violation of due process sufficient to require a new trial. See 21 Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law § 225. But the court quite properly does not reach that question for it was not presented to the state habeas corpus court, nor was error in that respect assigned on appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.13
Although I agree that we should not grant relief on a sufficient ground not presented to the state courts, I cannot but regret that we do not, at the very least, postpone decision to afford the Virginia courts the 'opportunity to consider this question. I strongly suspect that if we waited there would then be no occasion for today’s decision which makes it seem to me even more unjustifiable.

. The majority states the rule to be that failure to abide by certain “requirements” constitutes a denial of effective representation of counsel “unless the state * * * can establish lack of prejudice thereby.” Whether the rule is correct or not depends upon what is meant by “requirements” as discussed infra.

. Not that it is the best. See generally, ABA Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, Providing Defense Services (Tentative Draft 1967).

. Apparently Coles himself so testified at the trial and joined issue with the prosecuting witness on whether it was rape or prostitution. There is nothing to suggest an issue of penetration except the testimony of Smith, who disparaged his own notes, saying he could read them more clearly two years ago, but that “according to my recollection, his version was that he kept trying to do it, and that he was in the act of trying — whether or not there was any penetration, I don’t recall whether he said or whether lie even knew because my notes say here that he just kept trying to do it and that he was exposed.” Coles also admitted to Witness Vann that he had intercourse with prosecutrix.

. The court’s new burden of proof enables it to assume that her testimony would be favorable to Coles.

. Again the court’s new burden of proof enables it to assume there was such a witness.

. Aided again by its new burden of proof, the court is enabled to assume the reputation was bad.

. If this proves that Mr. Dupuy was ineffective, it would also prove the ineffectiveness of Coles’ post-conviction hearing counsel (a different lawyer) — except for the court’s switch of the burden of proof.

. The court seems to assume in regard to omissions (3) and (4) that a lawyer's duty of case investigation includes activity as a sleuth. I am aware of no such consensus of opinion, although it is true that Perry Mason sometimes acts as his own gum-shoe. I do not understand that we have before us the question of whether a state’s duty to provide counsel may include a duty to provide an investigative staff. See ABA Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, Providing Defense Services 23 (Tentative Draft 1967).

. The usual standard is well stated in Schaber v. Maxwell, 348 F.2d 664, 670 (6th Cir. 1965).

. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963).

. Twiford v. Peyton, 372 F.2d 670 (4th Cir. 1967); Martin v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 365 F.2d 549 (4th Cir. 1966); see also, Turner v. State of Maryland, 318 F.2d 852 (4th Cir. 1963).

. Powell v. State of Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932).

. The brief on appeal is said to have mentioned it.