holding failure to hold any meetings with defendant before trial was ineffective assistance of counsel
How later courts described this case
- holding failure to hold any meetings with defendant before trial was ineffective assistance of counsel
- "Without such a [in person] meeting, there is little to no hope that the client will develop a fundamental base of communication with his attorney, such that the client will freely share important information and work comfortably with the lawyer in developing a defense plan. Moreover, only a face-to-face meeting allows an attorney to assess the client's demeanor, credibility, and the overall impression he might have on a jury."
- “Indeed, the very nature of a capital case, typically quite involved and always subjecting the defendant to the possibility of death, clearly necessitates at least one in-person meeting between a lawyer and his client before trial begins.”
- indicating trial counsel “never once met with [the defendant] in person before his trial”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Commonwealth v. Elliott, 622 Pa. 236 (2013)
Moreover, the Commonwealth contends, even if we decline to view the holding in Brooks as a departure from prior law, it is distinguishable.
The opinion
Justice LAMB
concurring.
I join the majority opinion, with which I completely agree, but write separately to voice my concern that both the trial court and the district attorney’s office need to be diligent in making sure that the representation of a defendant, particularly in a capital case, is effective. Surely, no one today can doubt that a defense lawyer must, at a minimum, have face-to- *349 face contact with his client pre-trial to effectuate effective representation. While all participants in the criminal justice system have their separate responsibilities, the trial judge and the district attorney must be particularly sensitive to ensuring the rights of the criminal defendant, even if defense counsel himself is not as vigilant.