U.S. v. Brownfield, 52 M.J. 40

Military Justice Personnel: Defense Function: Detailed Military Counsel

1. despite the fact that a grant of clemency was unlikely, defense counsel was not free to ignore his post-trial duties without his client releasing him from representation; conflicts with the client must be resolved so that zealous representation may continue, or counsel must seek relief from the obligation to represent the client

Military Justice Personnel: Defense Function: Effective / Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

1. for counsel to be found ineffective, two questions must be answered: (1) whether counsel was reasonably competent, and (2) if not, whether the accused was prejudiced; reasonable competence is determined in light of a strong presumption of competence which an appellant must rebut by showing specific errors made by defense counsel that were unreasonable under prevailing professional norms; prejudice is measured by whether counsel’s performance was so deficient that the trial is unreliable and the result unfair
2. defense counsel must perform a reasonable investigation, or make a reasonable decision that an avenue of investigation is unnecessary; not pursuing the existence of a potential alibi witness is deficient performance which may be prejudicial in light of specific weaknesses in a given prosecution
3. it was unnecessary to determine whether counsel displayed reasonable competence with respect to locating potential alibi witness where the resulting show of prejudice was lacking because: (1) the alibi witness’s testimony would have contradicted appellant’s version of events in several instances, thus undermining appellant’s credibility and his case, and (2) the alibi witness lacked credibility
4. despite the fact that a grant of clemency was unlikely, defense counsel was not free to ignore his post-trial duties without his client releasing him from representation; conflicts with the client must be resolved so that zealous representation may continue, or counsel must seek relief from the obligation to represent the client
5. although miscommunication between defense counsel and appellant resulted in no communication with the convening authority on the appellant’s behalf by way of a clemency submission, appellant cannot demonstrate how he was prejudiced in the post-trial clemency process in light of the serious nature of the offenses, appellant’s refusal to plead guilty to any of the offenses, and appellant’s poor military record

Trial Stages: Merits: Motions

1. even if military judge erred in not granting defense counsel a continuance to locate alibi witness, there was no prejudice to appellant where: (1) the alibi witness’s testimony would have contradicted appellant’s version of events in several instances, thus undermining appellant’s credibility and his case; and, (2) the alibi witness lacked credibility

Trial Stages: Initial Review: Clemency

1. reliance upon an SJA’s opinion that clemency is unlikely, or relying on the accused’s exercise of the right to plead not guilty, are never sufficient reasons to forego clemency submissions

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. for counsel to be found ineffective, two questions must be answered: (1) whether counsel was reasonably competent, and (2) if not, whether the accused was prejudiced; reasonable competence is determined in light of a strong presumption of competence which an appellant must rebut by showing specific errors made by defense counsel that were unreasonable under prevailing professional norms; prejudice is measured by whether counsel’s performance was so deficient that the trial is unreliable and the result unfair
2. military judge’s decision to deny a continuance is reviewed for abuse of discretion