Responsibilities of Stand-by Counsel Upon the Assumption of the Defense in a Capital Case
Adopted: January 13, 1995
Opinion explores the ethical responsibilities of stand-by defense counsel who are instructed to take over the defense in a capital murder case without an opportunity to prepare.
Inquiry #1:
Defendant chose to defend himself in the trial of a capital murder charge. Several months prior to the trial, the court appointed Attorney A and Attorney B as stand-by defense counsel. The stand-by counsel were present at all pretrial hearings. At the time of the appointment and at other points during the trial, Attorney A and Attorney B were advised that if Defendant decided at any point that he did not want to proceedpro se, they would take over his defense. When Attorney A and Attorney B were advised that they could be elevated from stand-by counsel to trial counsel for Defendant at any time, they objected unless they would be given adequate time to prepare.
At numerous hearings prior to the trial, Defendant was offered the opportunity to have stand-by counsel take over his defense. Defendant refused each time and proceeded to represent himself throughout the "guilt/innocence phase" of the trial. A guilty verdict was returned by the jury. After the State completed the presentation of its evidence during the sentencing phase and after Defendant had called several witnesses, Defendant advised the court that he wanted stand-by counsel to handle the presentation of the remainder of his case. The court advised Attorney A and Attorney B to proceed with the presentation of Defendant's evidence in the sentencing phase of the trial. Attorney B advised the court that he and Attorney A were unprepared to proceed at that time because, in their role as stand-by counsel, they had not interviewed the witnesses subpoenaed by Defendant nor had they had any discussions with Defendant regarding the substantive aspects of his case. Attorney B also advised the court that there were other aspects of the case, including appropriate motions which might be made during the sentencing phase, which required investigation and research. Attorney A and Attorney B filed a motion for a three-week continuance to prepare the presentation of Defendant's case in the sentencing hearing, and they also filed a motion for a new sentencing hearing.
The court denied both motions. Attorney A and Attorney B made motions to withdraw on the grounds that they could not effectively represent Defendant without preparation. The motions to withdraw were denied. Attorney A and Attorney B filed petitions for writs of supersedeas and mandamus and an application for stay of proceedings with the North Carolina Supreme Court but the Supreme Court had not ruled at the time the trial court ordered Attorney A and Attorney B to proceed with the defense. Is it unethical for Attorney A and Attorney B to fail to present a defense in the sentencing hearing?
Opinion #1:
No, provided Attorney A and Attorney B made every effort to be adequately prepared, but reasonably and in good faith, concluded that under the circumstances they could not present a competent defense.
Rule 6(a)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides that a lawyer shall not handle a legal matter "without adequate preparation under the circumstances." The comment to Rule 6 notes "[t]he required attention and preparation [for the competent handling of a particular matter] are determined in part by what is at stake; major litigation and complex transactions ordinarily require more elaborate treatment than matters of lesser consequence." Certainly the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial requires the utmost preparation. A lawyer who is serving as stand-by counsel to a criminal defendant has a duty competently to represent the defendant at the juncture in the trial at which he is instructed to take over the defense. If that lawyer reasonably and in good faith concludes that he has not had an adequate opportunity to prepare under the circumstances, at a minimum he should advise the court and request a continuance in order to have the opportunity to prepare. Additionally, he may make a motion to withdraw from the representation. See Rule 2.8(b)(2). If the court determines that the lawyer should proceed without a continuance and does not allow the lawyer to withdraw, the lawyer should exhaust all reasonably available legal procedures by which he might seek additional time to prepare. However, having exhausted such avenues, if the lawyer continues, reasonably and in good faith, to believe that his lack of preparation makes him incompetent to present a defense, it is not unethical for the lawyer to decide not to present a defense. By declining to present a defense the lawyer must not be irresponsibly abandoning his client but must believe that under the circumstances and given the limited time available, even if he made heroic efforts to prepare himself, he would be unable to present a competent defense.
Inquiry #2:
After the motion for a continuance was denied, would it have been unethical for Attorney A and Attorney B to present a defense?
Opinion #2:
No. If after being put on notice that a lawyer believes himself to be incompetent to proceed without additional time to prepare, the court determines that the lawyer is adequately prepared and denies a motion to continue, it is not unethical for the lawyer to proceed with the representation on this basis.
Inquiry #3:
May a lawyer refuse to present a defense for a criminal defendant for the purpose of creating grounds for a post-trial ineffective assistance of counsel motion?
Opinion #3:
No. A lawyer may not pursue a course of conduct that would intentionally prejudice or damage his client nor may he engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. Rule 7.1(a)(3) and Rule 1.2(d). A lawyer may not intentionally present an inadequate or ineffective defense of a criminal defendant for the primary purpose of creating error and assuring his client a new trial.