Jones v. Barnes

Supreme Court of United States
463 U.S. 745 (1983)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An indigent criminal defendant does not have a constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment to compel appointed counsel to press every nonfrivolous issue requested by the client on appeal. Appellate counsel's professional judgment to select the most promising issues for review does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.

Facts:

In 1976, Richard Butts was robbed at knifepoint and beaten by four men.
Butts identified one of his assailants to a detective as a person he knew as 'Froggy.'
The following day, police arrested David Barnes, who was known as 'Froggy.'
After being convicted, Barnes was assigned Michael Melinger as his appointed counsel for the appeal.
Barnes sent Melinger a letter listing several claims he wanted to raise on appeal, including ineffective assistance of trial counsel and improper exclusion of psychiatric evidence.
Melinger responded by letter, stating that he would not raise most of the suggested claims because they would not aid the appeal and were not based on the trial record.
Melinger's appellate brief focused on three issues he selected as being the strongest, while also submitting Barnes's own pro se brief containing other arguments.

Procedural Posture:

David Barnes was convicted by a jury of robbery and assault in a New York state trial court.
Barnes, represented by appointed counsel, appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, which affirmed the conviction.
The New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, denied leave to appeal.
Barnes filed a federal habeas corpus petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel, which was dismissed by the U.S. District Court and affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Barnes then filed a new petition in state court, for the first time claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; this petition was denied.
Barnes filed a second federal habeas corpus petition, now based on the claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, which the District Court dismissed.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that appointed counsel must argue any colorable claims the client requests.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Second Circuit's decision.

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 the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel require an appointed appellate attorney to raise every nonfrivolous issue that the defendant client requests be raised?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Burger

No. The Sixth Amendment's guarantee of effective assistance of counsel does not require an appointed appellate attorney to raise every nonfrivolous issue requested by the defendant. A defendant does not have a constitutional right to compel counsel to press points if counsel, as a matter of professional judgment, decides not to present them. Effective appellate advocacy requires winnowing out weaker arguments and focusing on the strongest ones to avoid diluting their force. While the accused has the ultimate authority to make fundamental decisions such as whether to plead guilty or take an appeal, the strategic and tactical decisions of which arguments to press on appeal are the province of counsel.

Dissenting - Justice Brennan

Yes. The Sixth Amendment right to 'the assistance of counsel' should be interpreted to give the defendant the ultimate authority to decide which nonfrivolous issues are raised on appeal. The function of counsel is to protect the dignity and autonomy of the defendant by assisting them in making choices, not by making choices for them. This view is supported by the Court's reasoning in Faretta v. California, which recognized a defendant's right to self-representation, and by ABA standards, which state that the decision to press a particular contention on appeal is ultimately made by the client after receiving counsel's advice. Allowing counsel to override the client's wishes can exacerbate mistrust and undermine the attorney-client relationship.

Concurring - Justice Blackmun

No. Although counsel's refusal to raise nonfrivolous claims upon a client's insistence is not a constitutional violation, it may be an ethical one. As an ethical matter, an attorney should acquiesce in the client's choice of which nonfrivolous claims to pursue after providing their best professional opinion. However, this ethical obligation does not rise to a constitutional requirement so long as counsel's overall performance is within the range of competence demanded of attorneys. The proper remedy for a defendant whose counsel refuses to raise a meritorious constitutional claim is a writ of habeas corpus, where counsel's failure would constitute 'cause' for any procedural default.

Analysis:

This decision clarifies the allocation of authority in the attorney-client relationship for criminal appeals, establishing that strategic choices are the attorney's province. It prioritizes the effectiveness of appellate advocacy, endorsing the long-held view that skilled lawyers improve their chances of success by focusing on their strongest arguments. The ruling limits the scope of ineffective assistance of counsel claims, preventing them from being based solely on an attorney's refusal to raise every nonfrivolous issue a client desires. Consequently, it solidifies counsel's role as a legal strategist rather than merely a mouthpiece for the client's demands.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Jones v. Barnes (1983)

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

Premium Feature