Court Opinion

ID: 9657647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:33:05.765807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:47.223130
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
The Assistant Attorney General, representing the state, in brief filed in this court in support of the application for rehearing, charges that this court branded appellant’s trial counsel as incompetent in the handling of this case. This is not true. The only time the word “incompetent” appears anywhere in this context is in the state’s brief on rehearing.
We stated that the trial counsel made a thorough investigation of this case prior to trial and that he was conscientious and resourceful to the nth degree, but he subordinated his judgment to the whims of his client and, thereby, surrendered control of the case to him. We adhere to that statement.
The testimony of trial counsel on the hearing of the motion for a new trial covers nine pages of the transcript. The dissenting opinion quotes only three questions and answers. In fairness to everyone we think the testimony in its entirety should be set forth with the omission of counsel’s name.
“DIRECT EXAMINATION
* ‡ * * * *
“Q. * * * In the course of your preparation for this trial, did you have some conversations with Archie Taylor?
“A. I did. On several occasions.
“Q. Where were these occasions ?
“A. Most of the time, in the County Jail.
“Q. Do you recall how many times you talked with him in the County Jail ?
“A. No, sir. At least ten times.
“Q. Did you have occasion to go to the scene of this crime, or in the close proximity, and interview any prospective witnesses?
“A. I did.
“Q. Do you recall how many you talked to there?
“A. I talked to Miss Elnora Malone, and I talked to the owner of the cafe on 14th Street, between Third Avenue and Fourth Avenue.
“Q. What prompted you to go to this cafe?
“A. On my first interview with Archie— on my second interview with Archie, he told me that he was in a cafe on 14th Street, between Third and Fourth Avenue, having coffee, talking to two black women that run the place at the time the shooting occurred. That when he finished his coffee he went out the door and saw a crowd of people two blocks away, and he then walked toward the crowd of people, and he was arrested. I went to this cafe. The two black women who were employees there were elderly and didn’t seem to understand what I was talking about.
“Q. Did anyone there tell you he was there at the time the shooting occurred?
“A. They said they didn’t know anything about Archie. The owner of the cafe said he did not see Archie there.
“Q. Did you make any further investigation, to determine whether or not the defendant had any alcohol in his blood ? Did you talk to anybody about that?
“A. I went to the coroner’s office—
*582“THE COURT: You mean, the deceased ?
“MR. WAITES: I’m sorry. The deceased.
“A. I went to the coroner’s office, to find any information that I could.
“Q. Did you determine that there was some alcohol?
“A. Yes. The lady in the coroner’s office showed me the records and gave me some figures about the alcoholic content of the blood and told me she thought this was fairly alcoholic.
“Q. After that occasion, did you go and talk to Archie Taylor again?
“A. Yes. I mentioned the alcoholic content to Archie, and I said that this, along with the knife, which I knew about, we could make out a case of self-defense.
“Q. What was his reply ?
“A. He said, ‘Maybe we could, but I wasn’t there.’ And I said, ‘Well, I cannot make out a case of self-defense if you weren’t there.’ And he said, ‘Nonetheless, that is what I am going to say. I wasn’t there.’
“Q. Did he, in the course of your conversations and the approximate ten times in the County Jail — Did you have some conversations with him here in the courtroom?
“A. I did, on the two days we were in the courtroom. The day we were here for striking a jury, I had a conversation with him at that time. I told him that the State had offered him twenty years on a guilty plea.
“Q. What was his reply to that ?
“A. His reply was that he couldn’t plead guilty because he did not kill Mason, and that his conscience would be clear, to just go ahead and try him and let him go on to jail.
“Q. Did he, at any time, tell you that he was at the scene and that he saw a knife, from his own personal knowledge there was a knife there, or that Mason was drunk in his opinion?
“A. No, he never told me that. I was the one that found out about the knife, first.
“Q. Did you have any conversation with Archie Taylor about his feet?
“A. Yes. Archie said that he had something wrong with his feet and that he couldn’t run. He said that he had been treated at the Vocational Rehabilitation Center, on the Southside, for alcoholism and for his feet. He gave me the name of Mr. George Holmes to contact. I contacted Mr. Holmes. Mr. Holmes said I would have to have a medical release from Archie. I got the release. Archie signed the release, and I got this letter (indicating) from Mr. Holmes.
“Q. Does that say he has some problem with his feet?
“A. It says that the only medical information he has indicates that this man has blurred vision and falling arches.
“Q. Fallen arches. All right. Was his contention at that time—
“THE COURT: Did you say ‘falling,’ or ‘fallen’ ?
“A. Falling, f-a-l-l-i-n-g (spells).
“Q. Was it his contention at that time that he could not be the person that supposedly killed Mason, because that person was running from the scene and he couldn’t have possibly run ?
“A. That’s right.
“Q. All right. When Archie Taylor took the stand, did you ask him about that fact?
“A. I did.
“Q. Did he say at that time, to the jury, that he couldn’t have been the man that was running because he couldn’t run?
*583“A. That’s right.
“Q. Substantially the same thing he said today ?
“A. That’s right.
“Q. And he told you about the bad feet, and you asked him about that on the stand, did you not?
“A. I did.
“Q. Did Archie Taylor, at any other time, volunteer any other people, other than the ones you have mentioned, to be used as witnesses on his behalf ?
“A. He gave me several names of people that he did work for, and he said these would testify as to his good character.
“Q. I am talking about, so far as the facts at the scene are concerned.
“A. That’s all.
“THE COURT: What about this — you talked about character. Since it is in the record, did you pursue that ?
“A. I only contacted one lady, Mrs. Bush, in Vestavia, and she just said that Archie did yard work for her, and that that’s all she knew about him.
“Q. These names of people were not names of people in his community ?
“A. No. They all lived in Vestavia, or Mountain Brook.
“Q. People he did work for ?
“A. Yes. I did not pursue it any further, because I had gone down to the County Jail and got the FBI report on Archie and saw that he had a long list of convictions.
“Q. Did he volunteer to you the fact that he had been arrested in all these variotís places ?
“A. No. My first contact with Archie, I asked him had he been arrested before, and he said, ‘No,’ that he was a peaceful man. After I obtained the FBI report, I confronted him with it again, and he said, ‘Yes,’ he had been arrested once in New York for assault and battery.
“Q. That is the only one—
“A. —and he showed me a scar on his arm.
“Q. Is that the only one that he admitted to you that he had been arrested on ?
“A. That is the only one. As a matter of fact, he denied being arrested at any other times.
“Q. Did you have some conversations with Archie before the trial in February?
“A. Yes.
“Q. When he was brought down from the jail?
“A. I did.
“Q. Did you again have a talk with him about using the knife and the fact that the victim was drunk as a defense.
“A. Yes, I did.
“Q. What did you say to him and what did he say to you?
“A. I told Archie, ‘This is the last chance we have.’ The jury was already in the box, and the trial hadn’t started yet. I told Archie, ‘This is the last chance we have,’ that, ‘We don’t have a case unless I can go for self-defense.’ Archie said, ‘The only thing I can say is that I wasn’t there.’ I told Archie, ‘Then I will not defend you on self-defense if you were not there.’
“Q. All right. While Archie was seated where he is right now (indicating), and you were sitting here (indicating), and I was sitting here (indicating), where I am now, during the trial, did you have some conversation with him at that time along the same lines you just mentioned?
“A. Yes, again I did, and he said his conscience would not let him testify to the fact that it was self-defense, because he was not there. Archie never mentioned self-defense. I always brought it up.
*584“Q. Before, or during the trial, did he tell you another story about where he had been?
“A. About two minutes before the trial started, Archie said, ‘I believe — ’ —he changed his story. He said, T believe I was in j ail at the time this murder was supposed to have been committed.’ I asked him did he have any proof he was in jail, and he said, ‘Yes,’ that he had a little ticket. When they take the personal belongings, they give you a receipt .for them. He showed me this ticket. It had a number on it that looked to me like it was a 1, which was August 1st, which was the day this murder was supposed to have been committed. I used it because it was the only thing I had. It turned out later that this 1 was actually a 7.
“Q. He told you that he was in jail, though, did he not?
“A. That’s right. He said, ‘By the way, I do remember where I was. I was in jail.’ This was the first time I had heard it. For the six months leading up to the trial, Archie always maintained that he was in a cafe on 14th Street. Only about two minutes before the trial did he ever mention that he was in jail.
“Q. Now, you have heard him on the stand today — in my words — vehemently denying he was there. In your opinion, is that his attitude during the six months you talked to him and during the course of the trial?
“A. That was his attitude every time I talked to him, that he was not there, that he could not have killed Mason because he was not there.
“Q. In our opinion, if you had questioned him on the stand about Mason having a knife, or being drunk, would he have held to that story that he was just not there?
“A. Yes.
“Q. Now, Archie didn’t tell you about this knife being at the scene, did he ?
“A. No. I just learned it from reading the grand jury notes, which were in the possession of Rufus Elliott.
“Q. Okay.
“A. He let me read the grand jury notes. Then I asked Archie about it.
“Q. But he did not tell you about it at first, did he?
“A. No.
“Q. And he did not tell you anything about Mason appearing drunk that morning, did he?
“A. No. '
“MR. WAITES: That’s all.
“CROSS EXAMINATION
“Q. (BY MR. HOWARD) In your investigation of the homicide, was it revealed to you that Archie Taylor was drunk that morning ?
“A. About halfway through the trial, I asked one of the officers, the arresting officer, if Archie had been drinking, and he said he thought he had been drinking a little bit. Archie told me before that he had not been drinking that morning.
“Q. Okay. Did Archie tell you anything about his educational background, or anything, during the time you were interviewing him?
“A. No.
“Q. In your opinion, would you classify him as an educated, semi-educated, illiterate, or just how would you classify your client ?
“A. Archie was a very articulate person. The only thing I can say, he was awfully confused about events and sequence of events and dates. Other than that, Archie spoke quite well.
“THE COURT: How old is he ?
“A. He told me he was 58, but now he says he is 59.
“Q. Did he ever tell you, ‘Do not use self-defense in my case’ ?
“A. No, he did not.
*585“Q. Did he give you free reign [sic] to try the case any way you wanted to try it ?
“A. Yes, he did.
“Q. And you knew about the knife, and you knew about the fact that the deceased had a high alcoholic content ?
“A. I did.
"MR. HOWARD: That’s all I have.
“MR. WAITES: Nothing further, Your Honor.
“THE COURT: All right, you can go down.”
In Williams v. Beto, 354 F.2d 698, 705, 706 (5th Cir. 1965), it was held:
When one seeks the assistance of counsel, he thereby confesses his own inadequacy in the field and stipulates his willingness, like any other client, . . . to be bound by the presumably superior knowledge of the professional man on whose assistance he proposes to depend.
He agrees that this attorney will be in charge of his defense in the legal battle about to begin ....
If the indigent client, conferred upon and trusted to the lawyer, knows more about what ought to be done in handling the case, then he needs no counsel and it is folly for him to ask for it.
In Williams v. Beto, supra, the Court said:
“Court appointed counsel is no different to any other lawyer. He is still a lawyer, he is still practicing law, and he is no less confronted by difficult decisions of tactics and strategy. He cannot stand still and do nothing. * * * He must decide as his knowledge, experience, and talents best permit, and then move ahead. When he does this, that is all any lawyer can do, and the client has no right to complain of the absence of a miracle.” Citing cases. (Emphasis supplied).
This is yet another case pointing out that control of the law suit dwells in the lawyer.
Opinion extended. Application for rehearing is overruled.
Application overruled.
CATES, P. J., TYSON and DeCARLO, JJ., concur.
ALMON, J., dissents.