Free Chasing Gideon by Karen Houppert

“Doug Anderson did not read this language to [A.N.J]. Second point. [A.N.J.] himself did not read this language, and that testimony is undisputed. Instead, what Doug Anderson told [A.N.J.] to do is, he says, ‘the judge is going to ask you, did you read this or did I explain it to you? And just tell him that you did’ . . . when in fact, he hadn’t. [A.N.J.] had five minutes to see this document for the first time before the regularly scheduled trial date, the same date that he pleaded guilty. It wasn’t possible. It’s nine pages, single-spaced of dense legalese. And thistwelve-year-old boy couldn’t digest it, and Douglas Anderson did nothing to help him digest it in that five-minute period of time. And so to say that by lying to the judge, a twelve-year-old boy following the instructions of the attorney that’s appointed to him by the court represents his interests and to be his voice and his protection against the charges leveled by the state, that, to say that that’s an admission by [A.N.J.] of what was in the police reports, when Doug Anderson testifies he never reviewed the police reports with [A.N.J.], is offensive.”
    â€œWas there not some suggestion that the children involved, who are the alleged victims, had actually been victimized by other persons?” asked one of the judges, referring to the alleged victim and his sister. “Such that they became sexualized in their behavior and that there might be some reason to credit a viable defense against these charges . . .?”
    â€œAbsolutely,” Ahrend agreed.
    â€œAnd was that ever investigated by the defense attorney? And the reason that I say this is I just think, is there not a duty to give advice to a client in terms of whether or not they have a viable defense before they actually decide to plead guilty?”
    â€œIs there a duty?” Ahrend asked. “Absolutely, yes.” He decided to accept this gift the justice was tossing him and run with it. “And this court has repeatedly held the duty of defense counsel is to actually and substantially assist the client in deciding whether to plead guilty. This includes an evaluation of the evidence that the state has against that person. You can’t evaluate that evidence unless you, as the defense attorney, have performed an investigation. And here, it is undisputed. Douglas Anderson performed absolutely no investigation whatsoever in that hour and thirty minutes.”
    Justice Gerry Alexander takes up this question of investigation. “If Mr. Anderson had looked at the police report as I understand it, the young man told the deputy he had never touched this other child,” he said. “But the deputy didn’t believe him because he was not making eye contact or something like that. Am I right?”
    â€œCorrect,” Ahrend agrees. “Even Douglas Anderson said when I met with him initially, he was denying what was in the police reports. And again, they didn’t review the police reports.”
    â€œSays something about the detective—” Justice Alexander continues.
    â€œCorrect,” Ahrend interrupts. “Detective Matney, he denied it—”
    â€œHe didn’t just not make eye contact, he turned away and started crying is my recollection of the record here.”
    â€œI believe that is correct as well.”
    â€œBack to my question,” Justice Charles Johnson said. “It seems we’ve got two paths here in that your argument would be the same based on the facts of this case had this client been the attorney’s only client and did the same type of job, and back to the question, to what extent, on review, should the standards in caseload standards play into the equation here? Do we measure competency based on the number of files an attorney currently has when they’re representing a person? Or is that just sort of supportive of the factual argument you’re