Court Opinion

ID: 9793185
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:44:09.178075+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:38.277799
License: Public Domain

Gunderson, J.,
dissenting:
I find the concluding rationale of the majority opinion somewhat troubling.
Where, as here, an important proceeding has been erroneously omitted, as my brethren concede, I suggest that to inquire whether the denial of such proceeding was harmless error would require unguided speculation. Cf. Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (1978). Moreover, we cannot presume that this omission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967). It is in the context of these legal realities, not in the abstract, that the claim appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel must be assessed.
Thus, the following issue is posed. When a defendant has wrongfully been denied his right to a preliminary examination — an important right that, upon exercise, often helps to prepare a defense, and that in this case the appellant vociferously demanded in the presence of his counsel — may it be said the defendant “waived” such right because counsel failed to pursue the legally esoteric remedy of mandamus? I have hitherto believed that before concepts of “waiver” may be applied, at least some evidence of knowing forbearance is requisite.
If we try to speak of “waiver,” I think we then are forced to face the next question. Can a defendant be said to have had *951“effective counsel,” in contemplation of the law, when counsel does nothing to protect an important procedural right, which he knows the defendant desires to insist upon, which might have assisted the defendant, and the loss of which therefore may not be styled harmless error?
I respectfully suggest that to ask the question is to answer it.