Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Cronic (D) and two associates were indicted on mail fraud charges involving the transfer of over $9,400,000 in checks between banks in Florida and Oklahoma. It had taken the government over four and a half years to investigate the case, and it had reviewed thousands of documents during that investigation. Shortly before the trial, D's retained counsel withdrew from the case, and a young lawyer was appointed to represent D. The lawyer's area of expertise was in real estate, and he was given 25 days to prepare for trial. The two codefendants agreed to testify against D and D was convicted and got a 25-year sentence. The trial was over a check kiting scheme, and the contention was that D was the mastermind of that scheme. D appealed based on alleged known perjury by government witnesses and the competence of his counsel at trial. The Court of Appeals reversed; D did not have effective assistance of counsel. There was no determination that the trial counsel had made any specific errors, that his actual performance prejudiced D or that he failed to exercise the skill, judgment, and diligence of a reasonably competent defense attorney. The conclusion of the Appeals court rested on the premise that no such showing was necessary when circumstances hamper a given lawyer's preparation of a defendant's case particularly (1) the time afforded for investigation and preparation, (2) the experience of counsel, (3) the gravity of the charge, (4) the complexity of possible defenses, and (5) the accessibility of witnesses to counsel.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co