Court Opinion

ID: 9843074
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:25:47.078518+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:27.432855
License: Public Domain

FEINBERG, Circuit Judge
(with whom OAKES, JON 0. NEWMAN, KEARSE, CARDAMONE and WINTER, Circuit Judges, join), dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. This case should never have been subjected to an in banc hearing. And now that it has been, the majority has reached a result that is inconsistent with our precedents.

Misuse of the in banc procedure

Rule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that:
(a) When Hearing or Rehearing in Banc Will be Ordered. A majority of the circuit judges who are in regular active service may order that an appeal or other proceeding be heard or reheard by the court of appeals in banc. Such a hearing or rehearing is not favored and ordinarily will not be ordered except (1) when consideration by the full court is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of its decisions, or (2) when the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance.
Thus, the Rule cautions that in bancs are “not favored” and “ordinarily will not be ordered except ... to secure or maintain uniformity” or unless the case raises “a question of exceptional importance.” Neither condition has been met here.
An in banc proceeding was not necessary to secure or maintain uniformity, a requirement obviously intended to prevent panels from overruling earlier decisions unless a majority of the court agrees. See United States v. Valencia, 669 F.2d 37, 38 (2d Cir.1981) (Van Graafeiland, J., dissenting); United States v. Aguon, 851 F.2d 1158, 1175 n. 6 (9th Cir.1988) (Reinhardt, J., concurring), overruled on other grounds, Evans v. United States, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1881, 119 L.Ed.2d 57 (1992). Bellamy’s lawyer, Sidney Guran, was faced with the immediate loss of his license — well before Bellamy’s trial — because of Guran’s own admission to the Appellate Division of incapacity; Guran was allowed to keep his license long enough to try the case only because of a representation that he did not fulfill. The panel that first heard this appeal held that under our precedents in United States v. Novak, 903 F.2d 883 (2d Cir.1990); United States v. Cancilla, 725 F.2d 867 (2d Cir.1984); and Solina v. United States, 709 F.2d 160 (2d Cir.1983), Bellamy thereby suffered a per se denial of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Bellamy v. Cogdell, 952 F.2d 626 (2d Cir.1991). Obviously, the panel did not attempt to overrule the earlier cases so there is no need for an in banc to secure or maintain uniformity. We have here merely a dispute among the judges of the court as to whether our per se rule does or does not “apply to the facts of this case,” as the *310majority puts it. Such a disagreement does not justify an in banc. See In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc., 869 F.2d 116, 118 (2d Cir.1989) (Miner, J., concurring) (finding standard for in banc review not met when “the panel majority has applied well-settled rules to the specific facts of [the] case” in reaching its decision), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1102, 109 S.Ct. 2458, 104 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1989).
Moreover, much of the difference between the majority and minority involves a resolution of a factual issue that is in no sense appropriate for in banc consideration. The majority finds that Guran had a firm commitment from another lawyer (Marvin D. Skedelsky) to assist him at trial and that Skedelsky was “unexpectedly” unavailable. As stated below, we find no evidence in the record of such a firm commitment by Ske-delsky or even of his knowledge of the trial date until the very eve of trial.
Nor does this appeal raise “a question of exceptional importance.” There is nothing about the case itself that is exceptionally important unless one takes the position that any grant of a writ of habeas corpus is exceptionally important. We have not reached that stage of in banc jurisprudence, and I hope that we never do. This case is a factual sport. I doubt if there will ever be another in which a lawyer: (a) admits mental incapacity, including inability to concentrate; (b) makes this admission to the Appellate Division; (c) promises the Appellate Division that he will get another lawyer to try a criminal case but does not fulfill the promise; (d) makes this promise in response to the Appellate Division’s motion (returnable before the commencement of the trial) for the lawyer’s immediate suspension; (e) would almost certainly be suspended prior to the criminal trial but for the unfulfilled promise; and (f) is suspended two months after the trial without any further record being made.
In short, the facts of this case are unique and it raises no issue of “exceptional importance.” Indeed, the only issues even remotely approaching that threshold are those involving the application of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), to this habeas corpus proceeding. Those issues are whether the panel’s decision in this case announced a “new rule” within the meaning of Teague, and if so, whether respondent-appellee waived any arguments based upon Teague by raising them for the first time in a petition for rehearing after the panel had ruled. The in banc court specifically invited briefing on those issues but the majority does not address them.
In sum, the in banc proceeding here was not required either to maintain uniformity or to decide an issue of exceptional importance. It is clear that the in banc majority simply does not like the result of the panel decision. But an in banc for that reason is contrary to the spirit of FRAP 35. Such misuse of the in banc procedure bodes ill for a court whose filings soared above 4,000 for the first time and whose backlog, despite the devoted efforts of all the judges of the court, rose significantly in the statistical year that ended on June 30, 1992. In the face of such a caseload, the waste of time and effort caused by unnecessary in bancs cannot be justified. See Jon O. Newman, In Banc Practice in the Second Circuit: The Virtues of Restraint, 50 Brook. L.Rev. 365, 382 (1984); Jon O. Newman, In Banc Practice in the Second Circuit, 1984-1988, 55 Brook.L.Rev. 355, 369 (1989).

The merits of the appeal

Turning to the merits of the appeal, under most circumstances, when a criminal defendant raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must demonstrate both unreasonable representation by the attorney and sufficient prejudice to render the result of the trial unreliable. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). In a small class of cases, however, we do not apply Strickland’s two-pronged test of ineffective assistance but instead presume that there has been prejudice. The Supreme Court in Strickland spoke of such cases when it asserted that “[i]n certain Sixth Amendment contexts, prejudice is presumed. Actual or constructive denial of the assistance of counsel alto*311gether is legally presumed to result in prejudice.” 466 U.S. at 692, 104 S.Ct. at 2067.
Both before and after Strickland, we have applied such a presumption in unusual circumstances and held that a defendant had been denied the constitutional right to counsel. In Solina, defendant’s counsel had never been admitted to practice. In a typically thorough opinion by Judge Friendly, we applied a per se rule even though the representative was trained in law and apparently furnished reasonably competent representation and the evidence against the defendant was so overwhelming that he would almost certainly have been convicted regardless of who had represented him. We held that a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated where, without the defendant’s knowledge, “his representative was not authorized to practice law in any state, and the lack of such authorization stemmed from failure to seek it or from its denial for a reason going to legal ability, such as failure to pass a bar examination, or want of moral character.” 709 F.2d at 167 (citation omitted). We there concluded that “[application of a per se rule appears to us to be required in a case like this by the teachings of the Supreme Court_” 709 F.2d at 168. We were careful to point out, however, that we did not intimate that simply any technical defect in the licensed status of a defendant’s representative would amount to a violation of the Sixth Amendment, 709 F.2d at 167, and we gave several examples.
We next applied a per se rule in Cancil-la. In that case, the attorney at issue had apparently been licensed, but, unknown to the defendant, had participated in criminal conduct related to the conduct for which defendant was convicted. Despite the lack of proof of prejudice to the defendant, we held there that such participation created a conflict of interest that denied defendant his right to counsel at trial. The reason we presumed prejudice in that instance was that the conflict may have prevented the attorney from vigorously representing the client, for fear of being discovered. Cancilla, 725 F.2d at 870. As will be seen below, on the facts of this case we have no less — and perhaps more — reason to fear inadequate representation.
Two years ago, in Novak, we again thoroughly canvassed the subject. The attorney in that case (Joel B. Steinberg), although licensed to practice law during the defendant’s trial, had fraudulently obtained his license. In an opinion by Judge Kearse, we reaffirmed the holding in Solina and held that the representation at trial constituted per se ineffective assistance of counsel, lack of prejudice notwithstanding. Our reasoning again was that “mere technical defects need not result in per se Sixth Amendment violations” but that “serious substantive defects” do. 903 F.2d at 888. We pointed out that in Solina there had been “a demonstrated inability to meet the threshold criteria of competence in the law (as in Solina’s counsel’s failure of the bar examination)_” Id. Similarly, in No-vak, “[t]he defect in Steinberg’s licensure was not simply technical but was instead serious and substantive. At the time of his admission to the bar, Steinberg had not met the State’s normal substantive requirements for admission to the New York State Bar. His competence to practice law had never been tested, and he was not entitled to bypass such testing.” 903 F.2d at 890.
Our per se rule concerning Sixth Amendment violations is not a rule rooted in the facts of any particular case. As the author of the majority opinion in this case pointed out in United States v. Aiello, 900 F.2d 528 (2d Cir.1990), it is a rule applicable whenever a lawyer’s relationship with the licensing authorities is such that he is inhibited from conducting a vigorous defense “ ‘wholly free from fear of what might happen if a vigorous defense should lead the prosecutor or the trial judge to inquire into his background and discover his lack of credentials.’ ” Id. at 531 (quoting Solina, 709 F.2d at 164). As we emphasized in Aiello, we do not “limit the per se rule exclusively to the precise fact situations found in Soli-na and Cancilla. Rather, lest our standards undercut the sensitive relationship between attorney and client, we repudiate a rigid approach in favor of a consideration of the facts of each case.” 900 F.2d at 532 (emphasis added).
*312The facts of this case call for application of our per se rule. Accepting the majority’s statement of facts and supplementing it in some respects based upon the record, I think it is clear that because Guran did not have funds to hire other counsel, he made material misrepresentations and omissions that led to his avoiding a suspension and being allowed to try this case by himself. First, he promised the Appellate Division on December 12, 1986, that “of course” he would not try Bellamy’s case alone, that he would obtain another attorney to try the case and that he would merely assist that attorney. However, at the time this commitment was made, Guran conceded that he had spent the retainer Bellamy’s mother had paid. Thus, how Guran was going to pay to hire other counsel was unclear, which bears on the sincerity of his promise.
In a handwritten letter the day before, Guran had informed the trial judge that he had secured the services of Skedelsky to assist him at trial. However, the letter strongly implied that Guran — not Skedel-sky — would be the lead counsel, contrary to the representation Guran made the very next day to the Appellate Division. Moreover, Guran did little to carry out his promise to get Skedelsky to help him, either as “second seat” or as lead counsel. Although Guran mentioned to Skedelsky that he “might” seek his assistance in trying the Bellamy case, Guran never actually requested such assistance until the eve of trial. Skedelsky was thus apparently never informed of the trial date until the last moment and was never asked to make a commitment to be available at a particular time. Notably, Skedelsky was never asked to engage in any preparation to try or otherwise to assist in the case. Indeed, he testified that Guran would have been lead counsel even if he, Skedelsky, had participated. This did not fulfill Guran’s promise to the Appellate Division. Also notably, Guran did not ask the trial judge, whom he knew well enough to address as “Jack,” to adjourn the trial to a date at which Skedel-sky would be available.
The lukewarm efforts to secure a lawyer to “assist” were the result of the fact that Guran, who conceded that he could not repay the retainer if he was unable to try the Bellamy case, apparently did not have funds to retain other counsel. Guran knew this at the time he promised the Appellate Division that he would not try the case alone and would merely assist another attorney, and his promise was thus misleading.
Guran was equally misleading in his dealings with the trial judge. Guran’s handwritten letter to the judge did not disclose that his own lawyer had asserted Guran’s lack of competence to participate in his own disciplinary proceedings or that Guran would promise the Appellate Division the very next day to obtain other counsel to try the case. And there is nothing in the record to suggest that Guran otherwise informed the judge of these facts. On this record, the call by the trial judge to the Appellate Division would have evoked only an inquiry into whether Guran was still in good standing and would not have triggered a review of the entire file, which would have exposed Guran’s misrepresentations.
We note that it is undisputed that at the time of trial, Bellamy knew nothing about the charges against Guran, Guran’s admission of incapacity or Guran’s representation that he would not attempt to try the case alone. Bellamy has sworn in an affidavit that he would not have allowed Guran to represent him at trial had he known of the facts stated above, and that contention is not disputed. Indeed, according to the affidavit, Bellamy got his first inkling of Guran’s situation only at sentencing on April 8, 1987, when the trial judge would not allow Guran to represent Bellamy due to Guran’s suspension on March 26.
Contrary to the majority’s claim that it is “unclear” what effect Guran’s misrepresentations had on his suspension, the only reasonable inference is that the Appellate Division would have suspended Guran immediately or prevented him from trying Bellamy’s case if it had known he would not be honoring his promise. Guran admitted his incompetence and falsely promised to take preventive actions for the express purpose of avoiding a suspension. Without making full disclosure, he prevailed upon the trial court to allow him to try the case. It is unrealistic to assume that Guran’s *313course of conduct did not bring about the desired result, i.e., no suspension and no need to hire another attorney as lead counsel.
I thus believe that this case is governed by our prior decisions. First, we have previously applied a per se rule where a lawyer is not licensed (Solina) and where the lawyer obtains a license through misrepresentation (Novak). In this case, a lawyer, who had admitted that he did not have the mental capacity to defend himself, avoided immediate suspension and thereby retained his authority to defend someone else only by a promise to the Appellate Division that ultimately went unfulfilled. Had there been no such misrepresentation, Guran’s suspension would have taken place before Bellamy’s trial and Guran could not have defended him.
Second, can it be doubted that any lawyer (assuming his mind is indeed unimpaired) would not be inhibited in putting on a vigorous defense by a reluctance to have the judge or the prosecutor find out that he was trying the case alone in violation of his promise to the Appellate Division to act only to assist another attorney, a promise given to forestall a suspension order? The inhibition upon Guran arising from fear of disclosure of the true facts was every bit as strong as it is in a case where the lawyer is not licensed at all. Perhaps it was stronger: the unlicensed lawyer fears losing a status he only claims but does not enjoy; on these unique facts, Guran was in jeopardy of losing his duly licensed right to practice, a consequence that in fact befell him once the facts were known.
Even if there has not been a per se violation of the Sixth Amendment, the case should at least be remanded to allow the district court to conduct a hearing under Strickland. The state court’s failure to permit Bellamy to call Guran as a witness deprived Bellamy of a fair opportunity to develop the record as to the effectiveness of his counsel. The majority makes much of the state court hearing at which Skedel-sky, Victor Knapp (another attorney whom Guran approached regarding possible collaboration), Guran’s physician and Bellamy’s mother testified and concludes that given this evidence “Guran’s testimony would have been of little value.” This observation appears to assume the content of Guran’s testimony. Moreover, not one of these witnesses could possibly know the answers to the key questions: Did Guran fear that aggressive conduct of the defense might disclose to the prosecutor and the state courts his breach of his promise not to try the case alone, and, if so, did such fear affect his conduct of the defense? Were Guran’s half-hearted attempts to obtain the aid of another counsel limited by his financial resources? Was Skedelsky’s inability to assist at trial “unexpected to Guran?” Guran might well deny fear of disclosure (or any consequences of it), but Bellamy had a right to question him. It would then be up to the court as finder of fact to assess the credibility of any such denials.

Conclusion

I would therefore reverse the judgment of the district court, as the panel did. At the very least, I would remand for a Strickland hearing.