Civ. No. 1516 | E.D.N.C. | Jan 6, 1964
The petitioner was convicted in a state court of competent jurisdiction of the crime of first-degree murder after trial by jury and sentenced to life imprisonment. His application for a writ of habeas corpus is based on the ground that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel in that the three attorneys appointed by the court to defend him did not call to the witness stand certain persons requested by petitioner, nor did they allow petitioner to testify.
Accepting the factual allegations as true, the issue before the court is whether they raise a substantial constitutional question requiring a response from the State and, if necessary, a plenary hearing. Davis v. North Carolina, 310 F.2d 904" court="4th Cir." date_filed="1962-11-07" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/elmer-davis-jr-v-state-of-north-carolina-258978?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="258978">310 F.2d 904 (4th Cir. 1962); Edgerton v. North Carolina, 315 F.2d 676" court="4th Cir." date_filed="1963-03-14" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/chester-l-edgerton-v-state-of-north-carolina-260179?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="260179">315 F.2d 676 (4th Cir. 1963). The petitioner in this case fails to allege facts from which it may be inferred that he was prejudiced by the alleged inaction of his counsel; conelusional allegations are not sufficient. The petition does not disclose what facts the petitioner proposed to prove by the witnesses who were not called nor what the substance of bis own, testimony would have been.
It may be presumed that court-appointed counsel have rendered competent and efficient assistance in the absence of allegations of fact from which prejudice may be reasonably inferred. Brown v. Smyth, 271 F.2d 227" court="4th Cir." date_filed="1959-10-19" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/george-brown-jr-v-w-frank-smyth-jr-superintendent-of-the-virginia-state-penitentiary-249097?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="249097">271 F.2d 227, 228 (4th Cir. 1959). Attorneys assigned to represent indigent defendants accept such assignments as a public service in the noblest tradition of the profession. They are properly motivated by a desire to protect the defendant’s legal rights and to afford him a fair trial. In addition to their moral and ethical duty to represent every indigent to the best of their ability,
The petition fails to raise a constitutional issue and it is hereby denied.
. The basic reason for the constitutional guarantee of the right of counsel is to afford the layman unversed in the intricacies of the law the professional skill and knowledge necessary in the preparation and conduct of his defense. To give credence to an allegation that counsel was incompetent merely because certain witnesses were not called would subvert the very purpose of assigning counsel. A lawyer who cannot plan the trial of a case or devise basic courtroom strategy without fear of having his professional competence challenged is in no better position than a surgeon who is employed to perform a delicate operation but is required to follow the patient’s instructions as to how and where to make the incision. Oftentimes an attorney will not call certain witnesses nor put the defendant on the stand because the damaging facts which might be elicited on cross-examination would more than offset the value of any favorable testimony.
. The canons of ethics of the legal profession require a lawyer’s “ ‘entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability’ to the end that nothing be taken or be withheld from him, save by the rules of law, legally applied.” American Bar Association, Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 15.