United States v. Simpson
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12702
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Indicted Aug 10, 2003 for narcotics conspiracy, criminal enterprise, murder and attempted murder; co-defendant Terrance Benjamin faced death penalty.
- Myers and Murray were appointed as Simpson's attorneys; Simpson repeatedly refused to cooperate with them.
- Simpson underwent five competency hearings; multiple doctors testified about paranoia but many concluded he was not mentally ill.
- The district court ultimately found Simpson competent to stand trial; Butner and other centers also found him competent.
- Simpson requested substitute counsel; district court denied, appointing Ciaccio as liaison to aid communication.
- Voir dire occurred with Benjamin's death-penalty status; Benjamin pled guilty after jury selection, leaving Simpson before a death-qualified jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence to stand trial | Simpson was not competent due to paranoia | Simpson unable to cooperate; mental illness | Competence not clearly erroneous; court's five hearings upheld competent finding |
| Effective representation and substitute counsel | Crying breakdown required substitute counsel; Ciaccio conflicted | Counsel's communication failures unavoidable; no Sixth Amendment violation | No reversible error; no good cause for substitute counsel; Ciaccio not conflicted; proper liaison role |
| Death-qualified jury after Benjamin plea | Death qualification unconstitutional post-plea | Jury tainted; new jury should be struck | Death qualification permissible when co-defendant faces death penalty at voir dire; no new jury required after plea; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932) (indigent counsel must be provided; indefinite appointment violates Sixth Amendment)
- Lott, 310 F.3d 1231 (10th Cir. 2002) (complete communication breakdowns may warrant substitute counsel depending on context)
- Mullen, 32 F.3d 891 (4th Cir. 1994) (courts view on substitution where defendant chooses between pro se and retained counsel)
- Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (1978) (conflict of interest in joint representation can violate Sixth Amendment)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980) (actual conflict of interest requires showing prejudice; presumption of conflict rejected)
- Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (1992) (death-qualification must remove jurors who would not vote for capital punishment)
- Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (1986) (death-qualified juries do not violate fair-cross-section or impartiality)
- Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402 (1987) (two-defendant capital trial permits death qualification; not a per se violation when one is capital)
- Patino-Prado v. United States, 533 F.3d 304 (2008) (presumption jurors follow instructions; burden on challenger to overcome)
- United States v. Williams, 264 F.3d 561 (5th Cir. 2001) (fair cross-section and impartial jury concepts in Fifth Circuit)
- United States v. Joseph, 333 F.3d 587 (5th Cir. 2003) (clear-error review of competency determinations; consider multiple evidence sources)
- Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932) (see above; repeated)
- Martin v. Estelle, 583 F.2d 1373 (5th Cir. 1978) (medical evidence as material for mental-state reconstructions)