01-1535 U.S. v. Holman

Listen to this article

“Although Holman does not specifically articulate his appeal based on Rule 11, we think that his counsel’s deficient performance was based on a violation of Rule 11’s procedures. Though the concession of guilt was made during trial and not before, Holman’s counsel essentially gave up the same constitutional rights that Holman would have relinquished had he plead guilty to Count I before trial.”

“As outlined in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969), pleading guilty before trial implicates the privilege against self-incrimination, the right to trial by jury, and the right to be able to confront one’s accusers. See id. at 243. By conceding guilt to Count I at the beginning of trial, Holman’s attorney bypassed all these rights on behalf of his client: he admitted to those facts that were the elements of Count I; the jury was never given a chance to render a verdict on Count I based on an adversarial proceeding; and during cross-examination of the prosecution’s witnesses, Holman’s attorney did not ask any questions regarding Count I.”

“This was not a situation where the concession was made at the very end of trial, where the attorney realized after the close of evidence that there was no hope of a favorable verdict and that conceding guilt to one charge would hopefully preserve some credibility for the defense’s arguments opposing the other counts. Rather, Holman’s attorney decided from the very beginning that Count I was not worth fighting over and relinquished those constitutional rights of his client which Rule 11 was designed to protect.”

“Notwithstanding our finding that Holman’s attorney performed deficiently, we affirm Holman’s conviction, because he suffered no prejudice as a result of his attorney’s conduct.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Lee, J., Williams, J.