finding that the petitioner failed to prove that his counsel was deficient by not objecting to the reading of a witness’s testimony to the jury by the court reporter in his and his counsel’s absence, or that the failure to object was prejudicial
How later courts described this case
- finding that the petitioner failed to prove that his counsel was deficient by not objecting to the reading of a witness’s testimony to the jury by the court reporter in his and his counsel’s absence, or that the failure to object was prejudicial
- concluding that, where the verdict was returned and the jury was polled in the presence of the defendant, any prejudice resulting from counsel's absence was merely speculative
- finding merely speculative prejudice resulting from the absence of defense counsel harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
- "harmless beyond reasonable doubt" standard applies to review of Sixth Amendment violations resulting from counsel's absence during critical stage of trial
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WELLFORD, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
While I concur in the result reached by the majority, I write separately to emphasize an abiding concern about the practice of permitting proceedings to take place before the jury outside the presence of the trial judge and/or the attorney for the defendant. While no prejudice was demonstrated in this particular case, district judges and attorneys should avoid this practice, which may under some circumstances necessitate a new trial or raise the possibility of claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and attorney malpractice.