Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantattorneytrialtestimonypleamotionhabeas corpusdue processdefense attorneyappellant

defendanttrialtestimonypleamotiondue processappellant

Related Cases

Lowery v. Cardwell, 575 F.2d 727

Facts

The appellant was charged with first degree murder in Arizona and pleaded not guilty. During the trial, the victim was found shot in his car, and a witness testified seeing the appellant with the victim shortly before the shooting. The appellant denied shooting the victim during her testimony. After her denial, defense counsel requested a recess and subsequently moved to withdraw without stating a reason, which was denied. Counsel then ceased questioning the appellant and did not argue her defense in closing statements, leading to her conviction for second degree murder.

Appellant was charged by the State of Arizona with first degree murder. She pleaded not guilty and trial was had to the court without a jury. Testimony established that the victim's body had been found seated in his car, parked in front of a cafe. He had been shot twice at close range.

Issue

Did the actions of defense counsel, including the motion to withdraw and the abrupt cessation of questioning, deprive the defendant of her right to a fair trial and due process?

The question presented, then, is whether what here occurred amounted to such an unequivocal announcement to the fact finder as to deprive appellant of due process.

Rule

A defense attorney's belief that a client is testifying falsely can create a conflict that may deprive the client of effective assistance of counsel and a fair trial.

We start with the basic proposition that if, under these circumstances, counsel informs the fact finder of his belief he has, by that action, disabled the fact finder from judging the merits of the defendant's defense.

Analysis

The court found that defense counsel's actions, particularly the motion to withdraw and the lack of further questioning or argument regarding the defendant's denial of shooting the victim, communicated to the judge a belief that the defendant was lying. This undermined the integrity of the trial process, as the judge, serving as the fact finder, could not fairly assess the defendant's defense without being influenced by counsel's apparent belief in her guilt.

The judge, and not a jury, was the fact finder. From the testimony of appellant that we have quoted, from the fact that the examination of appellant ceased abruptly at that point with a request for a recess, from the making of the motion to withdraw and counsel's statement to the court that he could not state the reason for his motion, the only conclusion that could rationally be drawn by the judge was that in the belief of her counsel appellant had falsely denied shooting the deceased.

Conclusion

The court reversed the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition, concluding that the defendant was deprived of her right to a fair trial due to her counsel's actions.

We find no escape, however, from the conclusion that fundamental requisites of fair trial have been irretrievably lost.

Who won?

The appellant prevailed because the court determined that her due process rights were violated by her counsel's conduct during the trial.

The court found appellant guilty of second degree murder. The Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891, 55 A.L.R.2d 1055

Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309, 35 S.Ct. 582, 59 L.Ed. 969

Hamilton v. Canal Barge Co., Inc., 395 F.Supp. 975, 20 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1094

Dunton v. Suffolk County, State of N.Y., 729 F.2d 903

In re Estate of Rothenberg, 176 Ill.App.3d 176, 530 N.E.2d 1148, 125 Ill.Dec. 739