Red Dog v. Delaware
625 A.2d 245 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
If an attorney has a reasonable and objective basis to doubt a client's competency to make a fundamental decision, such as forgoing further appeals in a capital case, the attorney has an ethical duty to inform the court and request a judicial determination of competency, even if this action contradicts the client's express wishes.
Facts:
- A defendant, identified as Red Dog, was convicted and sentenced to death.
- Red Dog consistently and clearly expressed his desire to forego any further appeals and accept his execution.
- His legal counsel, a team of attorneys from the Office of the Public Defender, developed doubts about his mental competency to make this decision.
- Despite Red Dog's express and contrary directions, members of his defense team took steps to raise the issue of his competency to the court.
- Different members of the defense team presented inconsistent positions and strategies to the court regarding their client's competency and wishes.
Procedural Posture:
- In the underlying capital case, Red Dog v. State, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision to deny a stay of execution.
- During that proceeding, the Supreme Court observed that Red Dog's attorneys from the Office of the Public Defender had taken inconsistent positions regarding his competency.
- After the conclusion of the Red Dog case, the Delaware Supreme Court issued Rules to Show Cause to the Public Defender and several of his assistants (Respondents).
- The Respondents were ordered to appear before the court to explain why sanctions should not be imposed upon them for their conduct during the representation of Red Dog.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Must an attorney seek a judicial determination of a client's competency if they have a reasonable and objective basis to doubt it, even when this action contradicts the client's express wishes to cease all appeals and accept the death penalty?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. An attorney is ethically obligated to seek a judicial determination of a client's competency when there is a reasonable and objective basis to doubt it, superseding the general duty to abide by the client's stated objectives. The court's reasoning balances two competing ethical rules. While Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct (DLRPC) Rule 1.2(a) generally requires a lawyer to abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation, this is not absolute. DLRPC Rule 1.14(b) provides a framework for representation when a client's capacity is diminished. The court determined that a client's decision to accept the death penalty is not inherently irrational, but if a lawyer has a 'reasonable and objective basis' to doubt the client's competency to make that decision, the lawyer 'must' inform the court and request a competency hearing. Although the Respondents in this case acted in good faith, their actions were marred by 'inconsistency, lack of effective coordination and poor judgment,' creating a 'disjointed and confusing presentation.' Because their actions were not in bad faith and they assured the court the problems would not recur, no sanctions were imposed.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the significant ethical tension between a lawyer's duty of loyalty to a client's stated objectives (Rule 1.2) and the duty to protect a potentially incompetent client (Rule 1.14). It establishes that the duty to protect a client from making catastrophic decisions due to diminished capacity can override the principle of client autonomy. The ruling sets a clear standard—a 'reasonable and objective basis'—that lawyers must meet before challenging a client's competency, preventing attorneys from substituting their own judgment for the client's without a substantial reason. The case also serves as a strong admonition regarding the necessity of a coordinated and consistent legal strategy among co-counsel, particularly in high-stakes capital litigation.
Unlock the full brief for Red Dog v. Delaware