Legal Question in Constitutional Law in Arizona

court villoated constitution rights

my mboyfriend was set up he bought a car and then the guy he bought it from planted drugs inside the car,and the cops stopped him 5 minute4s after leaving the person he bought the car from .he was arrested for sale of dangerous drugs he took the case to trial the couts violated his constitutional right to face his accusser to have wittness on his behalf and to have proper counsel his lawyer would not put any one on the stand for us and in his closeing arrguments he told the jury to come back and find my boyfriend guilt.he's suppose to defend my boyfreind and want them to find him not guilty but in this case he said guilty.the jury found him guilty and now he on the run and facing alot of prison time for something he didn't do.is there some kind of legal action we can file to set this matter write.please help


Asked on 10/09/03, 9:23 pm

1 Answer from Attorneys

Edward Hoffman Law Offices of Edward A. Hoffman

Re: court villoated constitution rights

If your boyfriend's lawyer failed to call necessary witnesses or argued against him that does not mean the court deprived him of his rights. The lawyer worked for your boyfriend and not for the court, so it is not the court's fault if the lawyer torpedos the case.

This distinction matters because errors by the court are appealable while errors by the attorney usually are not. In most instances of ineffective assistance of counsel, seeking a writ of habeas corpus is more likely to work instead of (or along with) an appeal.

However, it is not necessarily true that the lawyer handled things badly here. Arguing that your boyfriend was guilty of *some* of the charges against him, or of a less serious crime than the one of which he was accused, may have been the smart way to go. Where the prosecutor has proved part of her case so well that no one can doubt the defendant's guilt, it often makes sense for the lawyer to concede that part and to only fight the remaining part. After all, arguing against something that is obviously true would undermine her credibility, leaving the jury less likely to believe the rest of her argument. You say that your boyfriend was arrested for drug sales, and in such cases it is often wise to concede that the defendant is guilty of simple possession but to deny any involvement in sales. Conceding the obvious can significantly improve the odds of winning the rest of the case.

Likewise, sometimes calling a witness can be a bad idea. Some witnesses have shady backgrounds which might come out on cross-examination, or they might have testimony which the lawyer knows the jury will not believe. Here again, putting the witness on the stand can do more harm than good.

Defendants often want to see particular witnesses called to the stand even if the witness has nothing useful to say. Laypeople often don't realize that testimony which might seem relevant in normal conversations isn't necessarily relevant in a trial. Not calling a witness under these circumstances is usually the right way to go.

Are you sure the trial court denied your boyrfriend the right to face his accuser? If this is true then he would have a strong argument on appeal. But who was the accuser in this case? In drug cases the accuser is usually the police officer who finds the drugs, and it is rare for a court to deny a defendant the right to cross-examine the officer. Laypeople often think the accuser is the person who made a police report which led to the arrest, but that is usually not the case. Even if multiple people have knowledge of the underlying facts, the prosecutor does not need to use information from all of them. As long as everyone whose information is used is made avbailable for meaningful cross-examination, the defendant's right of confrontation is satisfied.

Read more
Answered on 10/10/03, 8:03 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More Constitutional Law questions and answers in Arizona