Commonwealth v. Saferian

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
315 N.E.2d 878, 366 Mass. 89 (1974)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show both that their counsel's performance fell measurably below that of an ordinary fallible lawyer and that this deficiency likely deprived the defendant of an otherwise available, substantial ground of defense.

Facts:

On October 11, 1966, two men, later identified as the defendant Arthur Saferian and Daniel A. Daley, Jr., robbed the Gibson Liquor Mart in Dorchester at gunpoint.
The shopkeeper, Edward Rubin, and an employee, Walter Stewart, observed the robbers for three to four minutes and provided descriptions to the police.
Later that night, Officer Emilio Puopolo observed Saferian and two others in a stolen white Cadillac that matched the description of a vehicle seen acting suspiciously near another restaurant.
After the men failed to produce a license or registration and gave false names, Officer Puopolo arrested them for larceny of the car.
During a search incident to the arrest, Officer Puopolo discovered a cocked, .38 caliber revolver in Saferian's waistband.
At the police station, Rubin identified Saferian and Daley from a lineup without hesitation, and Stewart separately identified them in the station lobby.
Saferian's court-appointed counsel, a veteran lawyer, did not consult with him during the six-week period between arraignment and trial.
The attorney's stated trial strategy relied almost entirely on impromptu cross-examination rather than pre-trial investigation or preparation.

Procedural Posture:

Arthur Saferian was convicted by a jury in a Massachusetts trial court of armed robbery, larceny of a motor vehicle, and unlawfully carrying a revolver.
Saferian's direct appeal was dismissed for failure to timely file assignments of error.
With new counsel, Saferian filed a petition for a writ of error before a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
The single justice referred the matter to a special master, who found that counsel's assistance was not ineffective.
The single justice confirmed the master's report but allowed Saferian to reinstate his appeal and directed him to file a motion for a new trial in the trial court.
The trial judge who presided over the original trial heard and denied the motion for a new trial.
Saferian appealed the denial of his new trial motion to the Supreme Judicial Court, which was consolidated with his reinstated appeal from the original convictions.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a defense counsel's failure to conduct pre-trial preparation, such as interviewing the client or witnesses, constitute ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment when the evidence against the defendant is overwhelming and the defendant cannot show that this failure resulted in the loss of a substantial defense?

Opinions:

Majority - Kaplan, J.

No. A defense counsel's failure to conduct pre-trial preparation does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel where the defendant cannot demonstrate that the lack of preparation likely deprived him of an otherwise available, substantial ground of defense. The court established a two-part standard for evaluating such claims: 1) whether there was serious incompetency, inefficiency, or inattention of counsel falling measurably below that of an ordinary fallible lawyer, and 2) if so, whether this deficiency likely deprived the defendant of a substantial ground of defense. Here, while the court agreed that counsel's lack of pre-trial preparation was deficient, it found this deficit was substantially repaired by the constant communication between counsel and the defendant during the two-day suppression hearing and two-day trial. More importantly, the defendant failed to show any prejudice; he could not point to any specific fact, legal issue, or defense that was overlooked or forfeited due to the lack of preparation. Given that the evidence of guilt was 'overwhelming,' the court concluded that even with the attorney's substandard preparation, the defendant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel because there was no showing that a more prepared attorney would have achieved a different outcome.

Analysis:

This case is significant for establishing the 'Saferian standard' in Massachusetts, a two-pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel that requires a showing of both deficient performance and resulting prejudice. This standard moves beyond the older, more forgiving 'farce and a mockery' test and requires a more concrete analysis of counsel's actions and their consequences. The decision emphasizes that a defendant cannot succeed on such a claim merely by pointing to tactical errors or lack of preparation; they must demonstrate a tangible, negative impact on their defense. This framework has become influential in state and federal jurisprudence for balancing the constitutional right to counsel with the need for finality in criminal convictions.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Commonwealth v. Saferian (1974)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"