âDoug 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, âthe judge is going to ask you, did you read this or did I explain it to you? And just tell him that you didâ . . . when in fact, he hadnât. [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 wasnât possible. Itâs nine pages, single-spaced of dense legalese. And thistwelve-year-old boy couldnât 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 thatâs 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 thatâs 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
âWas there not some suggestion that the children involved, who are the alleged victims, had actually been victimized by other persons?â asked one of the judges, referring to the alleged victim and his sister. âSuch that they became sexualized in their behavior and that there might be some reason to credit a viable defense against these charges . . .?â
âAbsolutely,â Ahrend agreed.
âAnd 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
âIs there a duty?â Ahrend asked. âAbsolutely, yes.â He decided to accept this gift the justice was tossing him and run with it. âAnd 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 canât 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.â
Justice Gerry Alexander takes up this question of investigation. âIf 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,â he said. âBut the deputy didnât believe him because he was not making eye contact or something like that. Am I right?â
âCorrect,â Ahrend agrees. âEven Douglas Anderson said when I met with him initially, he was denying what was in the police reports. And again, they didnât review the police reports.â
âSays something about the detectiveââ Justice Alexander continues.
âCorrect,â Ahrend interrupts. âDetective Matney, he denied itââ
âHe didnât just not make eye contact, he turned away and started crying is my recollection of the record here.â
âI believe that is correct as well.â
âBack to my question,â Justice Charles Johnson said. âIt seems weâve got two paths here in that your argument would be the same based on the facts of this case had this client been the attorneyâs 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 theyâre representing a person? Or is that just sort of supportive of the factual argument youâre