U.S. v. Paaluhi, 54 M.J. 181

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

1. claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are reviewed de novo; in order to prevail, an appellant must demonstrate that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that this deficiency seriously prejudiced appellant’s defense
2. defense counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel when he advised appellant to talk to government clinical psychologist and confess to committing the charged offenses where: (1) defense counsel did so without awareness of the local Navy Medical Department’s limited confidentiality policy; (2) defense counsel erroneously believed that the communications would be protected under the attorney-client privilege; and (3) defense counsel failed to take the necessary steps to protect the communications by having the clinical psychologist assigned to the defense team as required by military attorney-client-privilege law
3. appellant was prejudiced by ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel advised appellant to talk to government clinical psychologist and confess to committing the charged offenses, and the confessions were used against appellant at trial; a confession is a most devastating form of evidence and the other evidence against appellant was not overwhelming; thus, there was a reasonable probability that without admission of appellant’s inculpatory statements to the clinical psychologist, the members would have had a reasonable doubt with respect to appellant’s guilt

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

1. claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are reviewed de novo; in order to prevail, an appellant must demonstrate that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that this deficiency seriously prejudiced appellant’s defense