Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In, PEOPLE v. SHORES, 2012 IL App (5th) 100196, the defendant argued that by preventing him from having copies of discovery materials, the trial court denied him due process and his right to confront witnesses and assist in his own defense. The court disagreed, but also said:

 

" Although we affirm the circuit court's ruling, we share the Savage court's concern about defense counsel's need to share discovery materials with the defendant in order to prepare an adequate defense. Savage, 361 Ill. App. 3d at 761, 838 N.E.2d at 256-57. Rule 415© was apparently modeled after discovery standard 4.3 of the second edition of the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice. ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Discovery Standard § 4.3 (2d ed. 1980). However, in the third edition of the ABA Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, the drafters "eliminated the requirement that materials obtained during discovery remain in the 'exclusive custody' of the attorney because the restriction unduly hampers the attorney's ability to prepare his or her case, which may require providing discovery materials to investigators, experts, consultants, or others in addition to the attorney himself or herself." ABA Standards for Criminal Justice Discovery and Trial by Jury Standard 11-6.4, Commentary (3d ed. 1996). In the third edition, discovery standard 11-6.4 provides as follows: "Any materials furnished to an attorney pursuant to these standards should be used only for the purposes of preparation and trial of the case, and should be subject to such other terms and conditions as the court may provide." ABA Standards for Criminal Justice Discovery and Trial by Jury Standard 11-6.4 (3d ed. 1996)." 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your Attorney has a duty to show you all evidence in the case.  

 

So, how do you get them to do that if they chooses not to? Or meet with their clients?

 

That's what many posters seem to be complaining about on this site. It doesn't appear that they simply want their hands held, but information and involvement in their cases. Granted, appointed counsel are overworked and underpaid and doing their best...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, how do you get them to do that if they chooses not to? Or meet with their clients?

 

That's what many posters seem to be complaining about on this site. It doesn't appear that they simply want their hands held, but information and involvement in their cases. Granted, appointed counsel are overworked and underpaid and doing their best...

 

Remind your attorney of his duties pursuant to Illinois rules of professional conduct. Once you remind him of his duties and state rule 1.4 of the professional conduct then he should comply because no attorney would risk being investigated by the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission (ARDC). If he/she still fails to comply with your  request then file a complaint with the ARDC and make sure you state that the attorney is in violation of the above stated rule of professional conduct. This only apply to Illinois lawyers, but other states have the same rules and procedures......just do some research.

ARDC

130 E. RANDOLPH DR., Ste-1500

Chicago, IL 60601

PHONE: (312) 565-2320 OR (800) 826-8625 

 

Rule 1.4 clearly states:

RULE 1.4: COMMUNICATION

(a) A lawyer shall:

(1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(e), is required by these Rules;

(2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished;

(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter;

(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and

(5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer’s conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.

( B) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

 

Adopted July 1, 2009, effective January 1, 2010.

 

Comment

[1] Reasonable communication between the lawyer and the client is necessary for the client effectively to participate in the representation.

 

Withholding Information

[7] In some circumstances, a lawyer may be justified in delaying transmission of information when the client would be likely to react imprudently to an immediate communication. Thus, a lawyer might withhold a psychiatric diagnosis of a client when the examining psychiatrist indicates that disclosure would harm the client. A lawyer may not withhold information to serve the lawyer’s own interest or convenience or the interests or convenience of another person. Rules or court orders governing litigation may provide that information supplied to a lawyer may not be disclosed to the client. Rule 3.4© directs compliance with such rules or orders.

Edited by Findlaw_FN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RULE 1.4: COMMUNICATION


(a) A lawyer shall:


(1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(e), is required by these Rules;


(2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished;


(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter;


(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and


(5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer’s conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their rules hamper the cooperation between attorney and client and make it very difficult for the client to knowledgeably determine afterwards if his attorney was ineffective.

 

Strickland typically demands that counsel go beyond discovery provided by the State and conduct her own pretrial investigation. See Crisp, 743 F.2d at 584 (“We do not agree that police statements can generally serve as an adequate substitute for a personal interview.”); see also, e.g., Washington v. Smith, 219 F.3d 620, 632 (7th Cir.2000) (counsel's “failure to try to ascertain what exculpatory evidence ‘new’ witnesses might have [was] flagrant example[ ] of ineffective assistance”); Anderson v. Johnson, 388 F.3d 382, 391–93 (5th Cir.2003) (deficient performance where counsel “relied exclusively on the investigative work of the State and based his own pretrial ‘investigation’ on assumptions divined from a review of the State's files”).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beagle - tell the judge:

 

“Courts have interests in protecting the attorney-client relationship, maintaining public confidence in the legal profession and ensuring the integrity of judicial proceedings and have the authority to disqualify an attorney from representing a particular client to protect those interests.” Kensington's Wine Auctioneers & Brokers, Inc. v. John Hart Fine Wine, Ltd., 392 Ill. App.3d 1, 12-13, (2009).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beagle - tell the judge:

 

“Courts have interests in protecting the attorney-client relationship, maintaining public confidence in the legal profession and ensuring the integrity of judicial proceedings and have the authority to disqualify an attorney from representing a particular client to protect those interests.” Kensington's Wine Auctioneers & Brokers, Inc. v. John Hart Fine Wine, Ltd., 392 Ill. App.3d 1, 12-13, (2009).

 

Thanks everyone...

 

This has been a long ordeal. The court has given counsel repeated continuances to review discovery with me. The last delay was for 30-days. Monday will be the 30th day and my next court date, but still no review or response to my attempts at contact. His staff will "give him the message".

 

I am now concerned that counsel is damaging my case...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what to say other than to suggest that, if you want this dolt to represent you (esp. if you are not out on bail/bond), I'd send him final written warning by trackable means about intentions and meanwhile perhaps attempt to hire other counsel to enter appearance so that (s)he can get copies for (at least) limited scope purpose of reviewing and discussing with you discovery produced by state that is subject to restrictions. Custody of evidence is not surrendered by showing and discussing X. One does not need to surrender copies to defendant to review discovery.

That defendant raises issues in post-conviction appeal or other collateral action attacking outcome on basis of cruddy defense and court holds no constitutional right but instead a matter left to (sound, not stupid) discretion of counsel is basis that serves to give court no compelling reason to fiddle with outcome below and change the legal landscape. Judiciary doesn't want to deal with opening door to counsel purposely avoiding X obligation in order to give defendant shot at appeal. (I have come across a few prosecutors who mess up accidentally on purpose to do the same. Reprehensible, but they salve their conscience this way and rationalize that other prosecutors are self-interested monsters who'd actively participate in frame job. Some figure it isn't their prob if defense counsel or self-rep'd defendant is inept, ignorant and/or lazy. Some anonymously suggest down road that defendant look into X. Tangent. Sorry.)

Look how long it took for change in game in favor of defendant by way of, say, Brady v. Maryland. The judiciary isn't fond of radical alterations to game. (Yes, I know it is not a game, but many folks see it as precisely that.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After lengthy and heated arguments with my attorney regarding my discovery and other evidence, I announced in court that I wished to represent myself, got my file, then promptly hired a new lawyer, armed with everything I would need to effectively aid in my defense. This was in California, but Im sure it would work here. Its your life and your freedom....anything in that file has to do with you, and is certainly your business....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been watching this thread and a few other threads for a while and had to sign-up for an account on FindLaw just to say this. Let me get this straight...

 

You can go to the expense of hiring an attorney or have one appointed to you by the public defenders office and he doesn't have to meet with you or talk to you? Or review discovery? And that is acceptable?

 

And when you complain or seek remedy from the court they will likely say "tough beans"?

 

What a rigged system!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Private attorneys don't have the caseload of the court-appointed attorneys.  If you hire a private attorney and you're not happy, you can fire them and hire another.  They get paid a whole lot of money to hold your hand.  Likewise if they don't like you, they don't have to take your case or if they do, they can change their mind and walk away leaving you to find another. Public defenders are appointed and carry a caseload that is 7 to 10 times greater than it should be even in the best situation.  They don't get to pick their clients or their cases and they don't have time to hold hands or reassure.  They are in court constantly, often running from courtroom to courtroom.  Prioritizing cases is a juggling act that not everyone is good at and even if you are good at it, you can't please everyone.  It's also hard when people don't respect what you do, constantly complain because you don't have the time to spend that they think they need or deserve and on top of that you are always accused of working with the DA when truth be told, you wouldn't cross the street to drop a cup of water on them if they were on fire...Public defenders do what they do because they believe that everyone is entitled to a defense.  They are dedicated and those that leave generally do it because they're just burned out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Public defenders do what they do because they believe that everyone is entitled to a defense. 

 

I strongly disagree that as a group you can make a blanket statement that all PD's are altruistic.

 

There are good and bad attorneys. Just as there are good and bad people.

 

It appears, generally, that those posting on FindLaw are seeking answers, often because they can't receive them directly from counsel. That doesn't make anyone good or bad professionally.

 

But, to answer these posters with reassurances that all PD's are doing the work of angels lacks reality.

 

The OP needs answers. I wish I could give them to him/her.

 

You're the knowledgeable professionals. Dig a little deeper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not doing research for anybody for free.  My time on here is voluntary and just because, as a former PD, I still like to help people where I can....As to PD's, why would somebody choose to work their ass off for low pay, little respect and no appreciation for what they do when they could work in the private sector, make a whole lot more money without killing themselves, pick their cases and have grateful clients who don't call them names and disparage their chosen profession?  It's because they believe in what they do.  Sure there are a few that just put in the time but overall, they do it because they're dedicated.  I'll bet I know a lot more public defenders than you do, Prisoner. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would somebody choose to work their ass off for low pay, little respect and no appreciation for what they do when they could work in the private sector, make a whole lot more money without killing themselves, pick their cases and have grateful clients who don't call them names and disparage their chosen profession? 

 

That's easy. Because they can't cut it in the "Big Show".

 

Same reason ballplayers never get out of triple-A ball and make it to the majors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree with you 100% LegalwriterOne, you are never going to win this argument, at least until Prisoner_X finds a PD who can get a guilty person off. Perhaps he/she does know more PDs than you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's easy. Because they can't cut it in the "Big Show".

 

I had a j-a sheriff tell my client that one time right before I got everything he did suppressed against her and her case dismissed.  I've been on both sides of the fence-PD & now private.  I know there are lazy PD's but there are also lazy DA's and lazy judges.  The one thing I know is you wouldn't do the job of PD for long if  you in it for the money and there are an awful lot of career PD's that have been fighting in court for decades on behalf of those who bad mouth them and don't appreciate a thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am now concerned that counsel is damaging my case...

 

Explain.

 

Enough with the pissing contest!

 

Beagle needs to explain how his case may have been damaged...

 

Back to the topic of this thread, Reviewing Discovery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beagle needs to explain how his case may have been damaged...

 

Dogg... sorry to take so long in answering...

 

Been waiting for the conclusion of these hearings (still not there yet).

 

The court has finally taken the complaints of counsels failure to review discovery to task. After numerous continuances, delays and aborted motions, the court wanted to know if the defense had met with his client, reviewed discovery and was prepared to schedule trial.

 

Another continuance was requested.

 

So, the court was then willing to hear the defendants renewed complaints. After several hearings on the subject, the final explaination by counsel was given... "trial strategy".

 

Counsel limitedly explained to the court, that his brief interactions with his client, frequent continuances, stilted communications and refusal to review was all part of his strategy. He refused to answer the courts questions claiming "work product" and only indirectly agreed that the defendants claims of lack of review were correct.

But, he said it did not matter... it was his strategy and could not be questioned on it.

 

The court accepted this, so it can happen... But is this a valid claim?

 

Counsels recent failure to meet or subpeona his clients witnesses was also discussed with the same excuses being given.

 

Witnesses have not been contacted, interviewed by his attorney or informed of pending court dates, but only by secondary or third parties (other witnesses). Counsel appears to only be studying or referring to police reports, but doing no independant investigations.

 

How will the client know his interests are being protected if he is unable to review discovery? How in the future can the client claim ineffectiveness if he is unaware of what his file holds? Or how can he likewise claim a Brady violation if he is unaware of what may be withheld? Most claims are waived brought before the court and on the record.

 

Is it valid to cut a client this completely out of his defense, avoid witnesses and do no acknowledged investigations?

 

Newly posted: https://boards.answers.findlaw.com/index.php/topic/237170-witness-scheduling/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After several hearings on the subject, the final explaination by counsel was given... "trial strategy".

 

Counsel limitedly explained to the court, that his brief interactions with his client, frequent continuances, stilted communications and refusal to review was all part of his strategy. He refused to answer the courts questions claiming "work product" and only indirectly agreed that the defendants claims of lack of review were correct.

But, he said it did not matter... it was his strategy and could not be questioned on it.

 

A similiar thing happened in a case from Illinois I'm familiar with:

 

Counsel claimed it was his "strategy" to not review matters with his client. He told this first client he did not want to risk "facts" about the case being revealed prior to trial. He wanted them to remain private and privileged and he would not share discovery with him.

 

Counsel then spoke to another of his clients about those very same "facts" from his first clients case. By his attorney doing this it caused many problems in the first clients case.

 

Doesn't revealing privileged information to a third-party break privilege?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't revealing privileged information to a third-party break privilege?

 

The attorney-client privilege shields only those communications by a client to an attorney that were intended to be confidential. Thus as a general matter, the attorney-client privilege will not shield from disclosure statements made by a client to his or her attorney in the presence of a third party who is not an agent of either the client or attorney. See 8 Wigmore, Evidence § 2311 ("One of the circumstances by which it is commonly apparent that the communication is not confidential is the presence of a third person who is not the agent of either client or attorney.");

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Counsel limitedly explained to the court, that his brief interactions with his client, frequent continuances, stilted communications and refusal to review was all part of his strategy.

 

He refused to answer the courts questions claiming "work product" and only indirectly agreed that the defendants claims of lack of review were correct.

 

What strategies would motivate an attorney to restrict information from his own client in this manner?

 

What would compel a court to tolerate this reasoning with little or no explaination?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What strategies would motivate an attorney to restrict information from his own client in this manner?

 

If the person were a terrorist, though doesn't apply here, I presume:

 

Pursuant to the Classified Information Procedures Act, 18 U.S.C. app. 3, the District Court was authorized to restrict access to classified information only to those with a security clearance, and its decision to do so here did not violate El-Hage's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to present a defense, or his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to be present during a crucial stage in his trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...