Turner v. State of Maryland
| Decision Date | 05 June 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 8732.,8732. |
| Citation | 318 F.2d 852 |
| Parties | Clarence Irvin TURNER, Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Ronald P. Sokol, Milwaukee, Wis. (Court-assigned counsel) Daniel J. Meador, Charlottesville, Va., on brief, for appellant.
Russell R. Reno, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. of Maryland (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, on brief), for appellee.
Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, and BOREMAN and J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges.
This is the sequel to an earlier appeal by Clarence Irvin Turner, a state prisoner who is serving a sentence of five years for participation with four others in an attempted armed robbery. The former appeal was from an order of the District Court denying without a hearing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and we remanded the case for a hearing to determine whether the representation afforded Turner at his trial was, as he claimed, so inadequate as to constitute a denial of the effective assistance of counsel. Turner v. State of Maryland, 303 F.2d 507 (4th Cir. 1962).
On this disputed issue the District Court has now conducted a hearing and taken testimony from Turner and the lawyer who had been appointed to defend him in the state proceedings. 206 F.Supp. 111. The record developed at the hearing supports the District Court's conclusion that the trial lawyer did in fact make an effort before trial to secure information necessary to Turner's defense. Yet, admittedly, the attorney failed to consult with his client until less than half an hour before the time set for trial, although his appointment by the court preceded the trial date by two weeks. This neglect we, like the District Court, are unable to condone.
A sense of professional responsibility should have suggested to the lawyer that the omission to communicate with his client during the two weeks available before trial not only constituted a deplorable disregard of the client's feelings, but involved the risk of overlooking significant information which the client might have in his possession or be able to point to. Normally, in the absence of clear proof that no prejudice resulted, we should be obliged to treat the lawyer's representation as inadequate and the trial as falling short of the standards of due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
However, the hearing which the District Court conducted ascertained in considerable detail not only what the attorney did and failed to do before trial but demonstrated beyond doubt that the accused in fact had no information to communicate to the lawyer which could have been helpful to the defense. In close interrogation of the prisoner and the attorney, it was clearly shown to the District Judge's satisfaction that during their short consultation Turner told the lawyer that the statement he had given to the police was true and that Turner in fact was involved in the attempted robbery.
Apparently, the appellant even now concedes that in so advising the lawyer, he intended to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore v. United States
...F.2d 624 (4 Cir. 1967); Twiford v. Peyton, 372 F.2d 670 (4 Cir. 1967); Martin v. Virginia, 365 F.2d 549 (4 Cir. 1966); Turner v. Maryland, 318 F.2d 852 (4 Cir. 1963). 15 Indeed, the use of defender agencies on a statewide basis is now recognized by statute in some states. See, e. g., Public......
-
Johnson v. State
...A.2d 244 (1981), was based upon the Fourth Circuit cases of Turner v. State, 303 F.2d 507 (4th Cir. 1962) and its sequel Turner v. State, 318 F.2d 852 (4th Cir. 1963). The Fourth Circuit has since reviewed its position and changed its test to conform with the language of reasonable competen......
-
State ex rel. Beckett v. Boles
...the petitioner was so inadequate as to warrant the invalidation of his conviction and sentence for the principal offense. Turner v. State of Maryland, 318 F.2d 852, Fourth Circuit; Beckett v. Boles, 218 F.Supp. The validity of the conviction of the petitioner of the principal offense can no......
-
People v. Vasquez
...will vary greatly depending on the nature of the case, the skill of the attorney, and the particular defendant (Turner v. Maryland, 318 F.2d 852 (4th Cir.); People v. Wight, 176 F.2d 376 (2nd Cir.)). As observed by the court in Rastrom v. Robbins, 440 F.2d 1251, 1253 (1st Cir.), "We recogni......