Court Opinion

ID: 9494172
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:31:05.871808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:15.532884
License: Public Domain

CARR, District Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I believe that the district court’s expressed basis for its decision to grant habeas corpus relief (namely, that the petitioner’s right to “private” communication was breached when he met with his lawyer in the jailhouse bullpen) is in error, because there is no such right under the Sixth Amendment or otherwise. In addition, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that this case can be decided on the basis of United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). The proper standard is, rather, in light of this court’s decision in Dick v. Scroggy, 882 F.2d 192, 197 (6th Cir.1989), the cause and prejudice standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The petitioner not having met his burden under Strickland of showing prejudice, the district court’s decision should be reversed.
*575I. There is no Constitutional Right to “Private” Communication
The express basis for the District Judge’s decision to grant habeas corpus relief was that there had been no “private” communication between the petitioner and his lawyer prior to trial: “Mr. Mitchell’s inability to secure private communication with counsel prior to trial rendered him without representation at his trial in violation of the Sixth Amendment.” (App.40).
The District Judge appears to have assumed that “private” communication could not occur within the bullpen of the county jail. While such may, in fact, be the case, there is no evidentiary support for this assumption. The District Judge, moreover, failed to point to evidence in the record that the circumstances foreclosed confidential communication between the petitioner and his attorney.
The Sixth Amendment assures confidential communication between a defendant and his lawyer. United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264, 295, 100 S.Ct. 2183, 65 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980) (“the Sixth Amendment, of course, protects the confidentiality of communications between the accused and his attorney.” (Blackmun, J., dissenting)); United States v. Rosner, 485 F.2d 1213, 1224 (2d Cir.1973) (“the essence of the Sixth Amendment right is ... privacy of communication with counsel.”); see also Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 554 n. 14, 97 S.Ct. 837, 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977) (noting government’s concession that “because the Sixth Amendment’s assistance-of-counsel guarantee can be meaningfully implemented only if a criminal defendant knows that his communications with his attorney are private”).
The constitutional assurance that attorney-client communications shall be “private” in the sense that they are confidential does not mean, however, that they must be “private” in the sense that they are entirely and always outside the physical presence of other persons. This distinction is underscored by this court’s rejection of the only case cited by the District Judge-his own earlier decision in Lakin v. Stine, 44 F.Supp.2d 897 (E.D.Mich.1999) — for the proposition that the Sixth Amendment requires that all communication between counsel and client be “private.” In Lakin v. Stine, 229 F.3d 1152 (Table, Text in WEST-LAW), Unpublished Disposition, 2000 WL 1256900 (6th Cir.(Mich.), Jul 13, 2000), this court held that a habeas petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not been abridged when the trial court refused his request to meet with his attorney outside the presence of guards who had been stationed in a jailhouse conference room. Accord Abrams v. Barnett, 100 F.3d 485, 489-92 (7th Cir.1996), vacated on other grounds, 521 U.S. 1114, 117 S.Ct. 2503, 138 L.Ed.2d 1008 (1997) (rejecting habeas petitioner’s claim that denial of his lawyer’s request for a private place to meet with the defendant during a noon-hour recess deprived him of his right to counsel.).1
Congress has limited the circumstances in which habeas corpus relief can be granted:
*576An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim—
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
As this court’s decision in Lakin makes clear, there is no precedent in this Circuit, much less precedent emanating from the United States Supreme Court, that holds that the Sixth Amendment is violated whenever a communication — no matter how confidential in fact — between a lawyer and his or her client takes place in the presence of other persons.2 The district court’s decision impermissibly extended constitutional doctrine in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Its grant of habeas corpus relief to the petitioner on the basis that the petitioner was unable to confer privately with his attorney, was, accordingly, improper.
II. Defense Counsel’s Performance Fell Below Constitutional Norms
Although the district court erred by applying a rule of law that has not been adopted by the Supreme Court, its decision can also be read as being based on the prejudicial effect of Evelyn’s failure to have consulted with the petitioner in a meaningful and constitutionally adequate way. To the extent that the district court concluded that Evelyn’s conduct in that regard fell below constitutional norms, I agree with the majority. I disagree with the conclusion of the district court and the majority, however, that the petitioner need not show he was prejudiced by his lawyer’s failure to have consulted with him adequately prior to trial.
There is no significant dispute between the parties about the number, extent, or substance of the pretrial contacts between the petitioner and his lawyer. Petitioner asserted that Evelyn met with him on only three brief occasions prior to commencement of voir dire; Evelyn stated that the petitioner may have missed one meeting, and that he had “talked” with his client “on numerous occasions.”
In addition, the petitioner repeatedly asserted that nothing of substance was discussed during those three or four sessions, and that Evelyn never talked to him about his case before voir dire began. Evelyn’s conclusory assertion that he and the petitioner “talked on numerous occasions” is simply not responsive to the petitioner’s specific contentions about the lack of substantive conversation about his case.
The Michigan Supreme Court erred, therefore, in its finding that there was “no factual basis for a conclusion that counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient....” 560 N.W.2d at 609. Because petitioner’s contention about the number and content of his meetings with his lawyer was in the record and uncontroverted, *577there was a factual basis on which the Michigan courts could have evaluated the adequacy of Evelyn’s representation. This aspect of the decision by the Michigan Supreme Court is, accordingly, “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 United States § 2254(d)(2).
The Michigan Supreme Court also erred in its determination that Evelyn’s performance was not objectively unreasonable. 560 N.W.2d at 610. The principle that failure to consult with a defendant prior to trial constitutes deficient representation is well embedded in Sixth Amendment jurisprudence, and was expressly endorsed by the Supreme Court in Strickland. In that case, the Court, in addition to fashioning the standard for evaluating the constitutional sufficiency of an attorney’s performance, stated that a defendant’s attorney has “the overarching duty to advocate the defendant’s cause and the more particular duties to consult with the defendant on important decisions and to keep the defendant informed of important developments in the course of the prosecution.”
The Court in Strickland further elaborated on the crucial importance of adequate consultation between a defendant and his lawyer:
The reasonableness of counsel’s actions may be determined or substantially influenced by the defendant’s own statements or actions. Counsel’s actions are usually based, quite properly, on informed strategic choices made by the defendant and on information supplied by the defendant. In particular, what investigation decisions are reasonable depends critically on such information. For example, when the facts that support a certain potential line of defense are generally known to counsel because of what the defendant has said, the need for further investigation may be considerably diminished or eliminated altogether. And when a defendant has given counsel reason to believe that pursuing certain investigations would be fruitless or even harmful, counsel’s failure to pursue those investigations may not later be challenged as unreasonable. In short, inquiry into counsel’s conversations with the defendant may be critical to a proper assessment of counsel’s investigation decisions, just as it may be critical to a proper assessment of counsel’s other litigation decisions.
Id. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052.
Since the Strickland decision, lower federal courts have consistently emphasized the relationship between adequate pretrial consultation and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See, e.g., Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 457 (9th Cir.1998) (“Counsel’s admission that he spent at most forty-five minutes with Turner prior to trial demonstrates deficient performance ... [and is] especially shocking in light of the seriousness of the charges”; the “failure to adequately consult with and prepare his client to testify did not meet the standard of competent representation.”); Noland v. French, 134 F.3d 208, 218 (4th Cir.1998) (“Counsel has a duty to keep her client informed of important developments in the trial and ‘to consult with the defendant on important decisions.”) (quoting Strickland); United States ex rel. Partee v. Lane, 926 F.2d 694, 701 (7th Cir.1991) (“Defense counsel must do his utmost to bring his legal acumen to bear on behalf of the defendant; keep the defendant fully informed of developments in the case and consult with the defendant on all major decisions to be made; ....”); Harris By and Through Ramseyer v. Blodgett, 853 F.Supp. 1239, 1258-59 (W.D.Wash.1994), aff'd sub nom. Harris By and Through Ramseyer v. Wood, 64 *578F.3d 1432 (9th Cir.1995) (record showed that defense counsel met with defendant for less than two hours prior to capital trial; “Counsel’s failure to adequately consult with his client fell below the objective standard of reasonableness and amounted to a deficient performance.”); United States ex rel. Cross v. DeRobertis, 661 F.Supp. 683, 691-92 (N.D.Ill.1986), rev’d and remanded on other grounds, 811 F.2d 1008 (7th Cir.1987) (citations omitted) (representation inadequate where brief meetings between counsel and clients occurred only in crowded bullpen; “The cornerstones of effective assistance of counsel are the informed evaluation of potential defenses to criminal charges and meaningful discussion with one’s client of the realities of the client’s case. Adequate consultation between the attorney and the client is an essential element of competent representation of a criminal defendant.”).
Federal courts had reached the same conclusion prior to Strickland. See, e.g., United States v. Tucker, 716 F.2d 576, 584 (9th Cir.1983) (counsel “failed to prepare his chent’s defense competently under the most tolerant standard of evaluation” where he, inter alia, “failed to obtain legally relevant facts from his client; .... ”); United States v. Decoster, 624 F.2d 196, 209 (D.C.Cir.1976) (“Realistically, a defense attorney develops his case in large part from information supplied by his client.”); Coles v. Peyton, 389 F.2d 224, 226 (4th Cir.1968) (“Counsel must confer with his client without undue delay and as often as necessary, to advise him of his rights and to elicit matters of defense or to ascertain that potential defenses are unavailable.”); Maynor v. Green, 547 F.Supp. 264, 267 (S.D.Ga., 1982) (“the duty to consult is designed to insure that a defendant’s counsel fulfills two basic functions: an investigative function and an informative function”; “consultation is a particularly useful method of pretrial investigation. Where there is little or no consultation, and it is apparent that consultation could have led to information that would have affected counsel’s decision-making process, effective assistance of counsel is denied.”); Gaines v. Hopper, 430 F.Supp. 1173, 1178 (M.D.Ga.1977) (“Effective representation further requires that the lawyer discuss the results of his investigation with his client, explain the legal consequences of it, and consult with the client on possible approaches to the case so that the client has some reasonable understanding of his situation.”), aff'd, 575 F.2d 1147, 1149-50 (5th Cir.1978) (“Informed evaluation of potential defenses to criminal charges and meaningful discussion with one’s client of the realities of his case are cornerstones of effective assistance of counsel.”); Turner v. State of Maryland, 206 F.Supp. 111, 114 (D.Md.1962) aff'd, 318 F.2d 852 (4th Cir.1963) (“Counsel should consult with his client a sufficient length of time before the trial to enable counsel to learn the facts, interview any witnesses whose testimony might be helpful, consider the wisest course of action, and explain this to the client. Usually the failure to do so until less than half an hour before the time set for the trial would amount to inadequate representation.”).
There can be little doubt, accordingly, that, as a matter of fundamental Sixth Amendment jurisprudence, as consistently declared by the United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts, pretrial consultation between an attorney and his or her client “should be sufficient to determine all legally relevant information known to the defendant.” Tucker, 716 F.2d at 581. In a word, the principle that failure to consult with one’s client prior to trial violates the Sixth Amendment is not “ ‘debatable among reasonable jurists.’ ” Nevers v. Killinger, 169 F.3d 352, 362 (6th *579Cir.1999) (quoting Drinkard v. Johnson, 97 F.3d 751, 769 (5th Cir.1996)). To the extent, therefore, that the Michigan courts concluded that the petitioner had not shown that his Evelyn’s performance fell below constitutional norms, their decisions were “contrary to ... clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
III. Petitioner Failed to Show Prejudice
The Michigan Supreme Court concluded that the petitioner was required to show prejudice in order to obtain relief on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. 560 N.W.2d at 610. As noted, that court expressly rejected the contention that the per se rule of Cronic, on which the majority bases its decision, was applicable. Id. at 608.
This court has held that a habeas petitioner must show prejudice where, as in this case, the only meaningful contact between the petitioner and his lawyer occurred on the eve of trial. Dick v. Scroggy, 882 F.2d 192, 197 (6th Cir.1989) (applying Strickland to a claim that a lawyer’s only pretrial interview occurred on the night before trial, and lasted only thirty to forty-five minutes).
Other circuits likewise apply Strickland, rather than Cronic, where counsel has failed to fulfill his duty to consult with his client prior to trial. Harris By and Through Ramseyer v. Wood, 64 F.3d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir.1995) (applying Strickland where, among other failings, counsel’s pretrial meetings with petitioner lasted less than a total of two hours; the state conceded that such constituted deficient assistance of counsel); United States ex rel. Cross v. DeRobertis, 811 F.2d 1008, 1013 (7th Cir.1987) (applying Strickland to ineffective assistance claim based, inter alia, on failure to meet with the petitioner except on brief occasions in a jail bullpen).3
I agree with the Michigan Supreme Court’s conclusion that the petitioner failed to meet his burden of showing prejudice. The four witnesses called at that hearing failed to shed any light on the critical questions that arose as a result of Evelyn’s failure to consult with the petitioner: namely, what did Evelyn know about the case as the trial began, what more could he have learned through adequate consultation with the petitioner, and what effect would such knowledge have had on the outcome of the trial. Without *580answers somewhere in the record to those questions, the petitioner cannot prevail.
For reasons that are not explained in and cannot be deduced from the record, neither the petitioner nor Evelyn testified at the Ginther hearing.4 As a result, no evidence was developed at that hearing with regard to the determinative issues in this case. Consequently, the petitioner failed to carry his burden of showing that he was prejudiced as a result of his lawyer’s failure to have fulfilled his duty of consulting with him prior to his trial.
Conclusion
The district court erred when it concluded that the petitioner was entitled to relief because his communications with counsel were not private. The Michigan Supreme Court erred when it concluded that the petitioner was not deprived of his right to effective assistance of counsel when his lawyer failed to consult with him in any meaningful way prior to his trial. But that court correctly held that the petitioner was not entitled to relief because he failed to show prejudice from his lawyer’s manifest incompetence.
That being said, I acknowledge that this is a close case. While I disagree with the majority’s view that its outcome is controlled by Cronic, rather than Strickland, it is hard to fault the impulse, which, in candor, I share, to find that the facts compel reversal. Evelyn’s conduct appears inexcusable, particularly in view of the fact that one of the petitioner’s code-fendants was acquitted and the other received probation.
Even more inexcusable is the failure of the trial court to have taken the time before commencing a first degree murder trial to inquire effectively into the circumstances, and to have ensured that the petitioner’s counsel was reasonably well prepared to defend his client. The trial court’s failure, in the face of the petitioner’s unanswered claims of lack of contact with his attorney and the lawyer’s eve-of-trial suspension from practice, to grant a short continuance is, in a word, incomprehensible. The compulsion to maintain a tidy docket should never, as it so clearly did here, place fundamental rights at risk. Would a week’s delay have really mattered?
The message of this case is not that federal courts are quick to intervene into state proceedings; the message is, rather, that the state trial court in this case could and should have done a better job of upholding the Constitution. Had it taken but a few moments to consider the petitioner’s complaints meaningfully, or had it postponed the trial for a brief period to make certain that Evelyn was truly ready for trial, this case would not be here. The time the trial court may have saved has led to a great and otherwise unnecessary expenditure of time on the part of the Michigan courts of review, the district court, and this court.
Nonetheless, even though the petitioner was not afforded the kind and quality of representation prior to his trial that he deserved — and every defendant deserves — he failed to meet his burden of *581showing prejudice. His conviction should, accordingly, be affirmed. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.

. I note that the American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice state that “to ensure the privacy essential for confidential communication between lawyer and client, adequate facilities should be available for private counsel and accused in jails, prisons, courthouses, and other places where accused persons must confer with counsel.” ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, The Defense Function, Standard 4-3.1(c). While the opportunity to confer outside the presence-and not just outside of the hearing — of other persons is clearly conducive to a meaningful attorney — client relationship and effective communication, the ABA Standard states a desired goal, not a constitutional norm.

. If the Sixth Amendment were violated by the mere physical presence of other persons while a lawyer and client were conversing confidentially, every discussion between counsel and client during trial could occur only if the courtroom were cleared, or a recess were taken.

. Even if we properly could disregard Dick, I would nonetheless conclude that Strickland, rather than Cronic, is the proper standard. Although the failure to meet with one's client appears inexplicable and unjustifiable, it does not, as required by Cronic, present "circumstances that are so likely to prejudice the accused that the cost of litigating their effect in a particular case is unjustified.” 466 U.S. at 658, 104 S.Ct. 2039. Claims of ineffectiveness based on the failure of counsel to perform his or her duties adequately prior to trial are routinely litigated in state and federal courts. Nor can I conclude, as required under Cronic, that Evelyn "entirely fail[ed] to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing,” or was "prevented from assisting the accused during a critical stage of the proceeding.” Id. Nor does the failure to meet with one's client prior to trial automatically make "the likelihood that counsel [can perform] as an effective adversary ... so remote as to [make] the trial inherently unfair.” Id. at 661, 104 S.Ct. 2039.
Here, though Evelyn failed to assist the petitioner during a critical stage of the proceeding, he was not prevented from doing so by the trial court or any other external agency. Though his challenge to the state's case may have been more effective had he taken the time to learn what he could from the petitioner, he nonetheless subjected the state’s case to meaningful challenge, as shown by the reduction, on his motion, of the charge from first to second degree murder.

. Contrary to the Warden's argument, I do not find that petitioner's failure to call Evelyn at the Ginther hearing waived his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. I do not, moreover, read the opinion of the Michigan Supreme Court as holding that claims of ineffective assistance will be deemed defaulted whenever a petitioner, though able to do so, fails to call his former attorney at a Ginther hearing. That opinion, and my dissent, underscore, however, the risks that a petitioner runs when he foregoes calling his former counsel, especially where the determinative issue is what the lawyer knew and did with that knowledge before the trial began.