Archive for the ‘Post-Conviction’ Category

A Brief for Those Who Lack Creativity

Thursday, April 29th, 2010

Yesterday, Ohio criminal defense lawyer Jeff Gamso put up a blog post that included this paragraph:

In Ohio criminal defense circles, I’m known as one of the Anti-Anders-brief Nazis. Under considerable pressure from other members of the bar, I was convinced not to try publicly humiliating the lawyers who file them. Sort of like maintaining good relations with repressive regimes because we can reach them better if we’re nice, I have standing offers out to help lawyers find issues when they’re stuck. Occasionally I’m taken up on the offers. I’ve had some success at convincing people they shouldn’t be filing them. And I speak about this sort of thing a fair amount at CLEs. It’s not enough, but it’s what I can do.

If you aren’t a criminal defense lawyer, you probably don’t know what an Anders brief is. Consider yourself lucky. An Anders brief is an appellate criminal defense lawyer’s white flag signaling defeat. It’s the equivalent of an appellate lawyer publicly wearing a sandwich board sign telling everyone he or she has read an entire trial case worth of transcripts, met with the client, and spoken with the trial lawyer, yet is still incapable of finding a single reason in the record why his or her client, who lost at trial, shouldn’t have been convicted.

Maybe I’m exaggerating a bit, but Anders briefs really are pretty amazing things. An Anders brief, which has the same silly table of contents and table of authorities as any appellate brief, literally just describes the nature of the case and the facts, then says that counsel has found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. The lawyer then asks the court to do his job search the record for reversible error. As if that wasn’t enough, the brief usually ends by asking the court for leave so the client, without any help from the person who’s supposed to be representing him, can file a supplemental brief on his own.

When I was in law school, I wrote a number of appellate briefs working as a clerk and research assistant for a sole practitioner. I remember being very suspicious of the Anders briefs he had me write. I always thought there were issues, but he told me it wasn’t worth it because they all involved us arguing for the appellate court to overturn well-established precedent from a higher court. Invariably, I would encounter existing case law that was ridiculous and unfair. The idea of filing an Anders brief instead of fighting the good fight bothered me.

At the time, unfortunately, I had never done a trial or even seen a trial. I didn’t even have a bar number. He was the lawyer, so Anders briefs they were. He told me he wouldn’t be appointed for anything other than the direct appeal, so he wouldn’t be able to personally litigate the issues any further. I realized soon that what he really meant was that he wouldn’t get paid enough to take the appeal up to a court that actually had the power to do anything, and he wasn’t interested in working for free. He also seemed very concerned that the next lawyer, if there was one, would think badly of him for making an argument contrary to existing case law.

I hated every second I spent writing those briefs. I thought about how dumb it was that an appellate court even needed a brief to review the record on its own. Did they require a table of contents and table of authorities just to make sure the lawyer on appeal did something on the case? What would they do if I incorrectly cited Anders v. California or got a cite to the record wrong? Would anyone actually read the brief? Do the courts really hate trees so much that they waste paper just for the sake of wasting paper? I often thought about how it might actually be easier to write a real appeal on many of the more basic arguments I wanted to raise. Why not just give it a whirl?

As a lawyer, I’ve done everything I can to avoid ever having to file an Anders brief. I consider myself a very creative person, and I’ve had to put that to good use. I’ve made plenty of purely equitable arguments and argued for overturn of precedent. Some arguments may have been pretty far out, but I never made one I don’t still stand behind.

As a result, I’ve gotten at least one somewhat snarky decision from an appellate court. It didn’t feel good being treated like a dumbass for making an argument, but I feel confident that anyone reading the briefs without the benefit of a legal education would’ve thought I was in the right. Constitutions, statutes, and cases are frequently unfair. I just pointed it out and suggested an alternative. It isn’t my fault that a few people who are almost completely disconnected from the world in which most of us reside aren’t willing to think outside the box. I’d like for everyone to think I’m smart and like me, but that isn’t my job. Writing those terrible briefs for that other lawyer made me feel much worse than writing something a few judges didn’t get.

Sadly, I must admit that there is one Anders brief out there with my name on it. My nightmare came last year when I received an appellate appointment in a different jurisdiction. The circumstances were fairly unusual, and even though I didn’t have an appellate contract in that jurisdiction, it made a lot of sense for me to do the appeal. I took it on expecting I would find something, but I soon realized I was mistaken.

The trial lawyer told me it would be an Anders brief, and I immediately became suspicious of him. The suspicion only lasted until I finished reading the record. The defense won every motion. From what I recall, almost every defense objection was sustained, and almost every one of the state’s objections was overruled. The judge happily struck every prospective juror the defense requested be struck, and he gave the defense every single requested jury instruction. Even with those victories, the case against the client was overwhelming. It involved drug sales to an undercover agent witnessed by no less than a half dozen other officers. On top of that, the defendant was acquitted on all the counts that might have given rise to an appellate issue regarding the sentence. Even the client couldn’t think of a single issue.

Winning all those motions probably felt great for the defense lawyer at the time, but it made my job all but impossible. I wrote an Anders brief with my head hung low, and I filed it in shame. I think that’s going to be the last appellate appointment I ever accept. With private cases, I can screen for issues.

Personally, I’d love to attend one of Jeff Gamso’s CLEs and hear more about what he has to say on the subject. There’s something terribly wrong about the very concept of an Anders brief, and I’d be a happier person having gained some knowledge that might help make sure I never have to feel the shame of filing one again.

Lying Officers on Appeal

Monday, February 2nd, 2009

When I review evidentiary hearing transcripts for appeals, I cringe when officers opine about what they saw defendants do. Officers are always 100% sure about what was going on, whether their opinions match the facts or not. A lot of the time, an officer’s opinion about what a defendant did can make a defense motion fail.

Any movement by a defendant is a “furtive gesture” suggesting he was hiding something. If the defendant says his pants were falling down and he had to pull them up, the cop will say the defendant was trying to hide something in his pants. “There was no good reason for Mr. So-and-So to be pulling up his pants.” The trial court will almost always agree with the officer and find the defendant was not pulling up his pants. People pull up their pants when they are loose. A number of my clients wear pants that are always on the verge of falling down. Judges must know that, but when an officer says “there was no other reason for Mr. So-and-So to do what he claimed he was doing,” it’s over. The officer’s version of facts justifies the search. A well-coached cop who is adept at sticking with his opinion and selling it to the judge can often make even the strongest defense motions fail.

If every single objective fact suggests the officer’s opinion was wrong or an outright lie, the appellate court is probably going to say the trial court’s factual findings were supported by the record and not clearly erroneous. That’s the standard. Forget about all the evidence the defendant presented showing he was pulling up his sagging pants. Maybe they even fell down in court; it’s a hazard of the style. You can bring the falsity of an officer’s statement to the appellate court’s attention, but you’ll rarely succeed. The officer said the defendant had no reason to pull up his pants, so there’s your basis. Suck it up, the finding wasn’t erroneous. Your best shot is bringing it up in a petition for post-conviction relief, but you’ll be filing that with the same judge that believed the officer in the first place.

Every time I read a ruling that relies an officer’s opinion about the facts to reach its conclusion, I imagine all the unconstitutional searches and seizures that are going to be upheld as a result. I really wish courts would formulate standards that can’t be automatically satisfied by a well-thought-out lie about what the defendant was doing. Just the facts. Let the court apply the law.

Post-Conviction Remedies

Wednesday, October 29th, 2008

In Arizona, a defendant who pleads guilty cannot file a direct appeal. Instead, his only remedy is filing a Rule 32 Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. Most of my clients think that winning a petition for post-conviction relief is always a good thing. Unfortunately, in some cases, people may end up being worse off for having filed a successful petition.

If I file a rule 32 petition arguing that a trial court did not have jurisdiction because the statute of limitations had expired, the case essentially goes away if the court of appeals agrees with me. Similarly, the state likely will not bother with a case if essential evidence is suppressed due to constitutional issues or if a criminal statute is held unconstitutional.

However, a number of clients want to argue their trial counsel was ineffective and that they would not have accepted the plea had it not been for their lawyer’s unprofessional errors. Often, the client signed a plea stipulating to prison time, albeit a lesser sentence than they would have received had they lost at trial.

Let’s say the client’s lawyer did a terrible job. He didn’t file any motions, didn’t conduct any interviews, and didn’t try to negotiate a better plea agreement. He missed deadlines and failed to spot key issues. If he is deemed ineffective, the whole process will basically start over.

If the client gets a better attorney, there is no guarantee that he will win at trial or receive a better plea agreement. He could end up with a much longer prison sentence. That means that whenever someone wants to argue ineffective assistance, they should seriously consider the chances of a better outcome should their requested relief be granted. Sometimes, although it’s a shame someone had a truly ineffective lawyer, I will advise them against filing a rule 32 petition.