So while Dontrell Deaner’s judge was wise enough to halt proceedings and get him new, competent counsel before he spent the rest of his days in jail waiting for an appeal that would be fruitless, a trial judge in Michigan thought, ah hell, this fucker is guilty so we might as well just go on with the show and let Jeffrey Paul Gioglio be convicted after a farce of a trial. This is shocking only in light of the most recent DC debacle, otherwise, isn’t this just how it goes?
The incompetent, shameless attorney in this case Susan Prentice-Sao. Ms. Prentice-Sao doesn’t have a huge web-presence, but it seems she is a general practice attorney, you know, dabbling in criminal defense and also doing some bankruptcy here and there. Her reviews are mixed – she is either the best lawyer ever or she is a danger to society.
So, you want to know what Prentice-Sao did? Well, she took on a child sex case that she was incompetent to handle, she didn’t make an opening statement, she didn’t cross-examine witnesses, and she told the prosecutor that her client made admissions to the crime. How did the appeals court find all this out? Well, the prosecutor told them that he had concerns about Ms. Prentice-Sao’s conduct during the trial. Holy fucking shit. A PROSECUTOR pointed out that she was incompetent. The trial court didn’t see it. The Appeals court almost didn’t buy it (the decision is not unanimous) but this lawyer was so bad that those folks we accuse of being eager to do nothing but convict, convict, convict realized that they didn’t win as much as defense counsel made sure her client lost. Oh, and after the verdict was returned, this ‘advocate’ gave the prosecutor the thumbs up sign and said her client was ‘toast’.
The Appeals court said:
“Defendant may very well be guilty and might deserve a lengthy prison term, but our constitutions do not reserve the right to the effective assistance of counsel to only those defendants who are actually innocent. … In this case, it is clear that Prentice-Sao’s performance was so inadequate that, in effect, defendant had no assistance of counsel at all,” the judges said.
The dissenting appellate judge (a vigorous dissent) said that the trial judge was in a better position to determine whether Ms. Prentice-Sao was effective. Yes, that’s true. But that would require the trial judge to 1. pay attention and 2. to care. It’s possible that the trial judge did both and defense counsel did a bang up job and the prosecutor just wanted to, you know, have the appeals court reverse the conviction. That seems just a wee bit far fetched to me, but I could be wrong (no, I couldn’t be, not in this case.)
Mr. Prentice-Sao is not what you would consider a newbie. She’s been licensed to practice law for 6 years. I’m assuming, since she doesn’t have a huge website or blog, etc. that she may have actually been referred. It’s possible she just dropped the ball on this one and maybe she shouldn’t be handling child sex cases if they make her squeamish. I don’t know. What I do know is that bad lawyering makes me sick to my stomach.
What I wonder is this – how bad was Rakofsky that the trial judge there declared a mistrial? I’ve been in courtrooms and watched lawyers stumble through and heard “lay a foundation,counselor” with folks trying a million different ways and failing each time. I’ve seen lawyers waive opening statement, I’ve seen lawyers put their clients on to testify when they have clearly not been prepared, and not making objections which would be necessary to preserve the trial record. And none of those cases have come back. Are we reaching a point where we are starting to take the 6th amendment seriously? I don’t think so, but something is happening out there.
So all you shit lawyers, watch out. Maybe someone is on to you. Maybe.
I agree in part with your sentiment, but I'll give you some (free) advice to be careful how you refer to this attorney in light of defamation and other similar torts.
God, it almost sounds like she took the case just so she could ensure the client ended up guilty. Ugh.
Well, perhaps in light of those torts I can just cut and paste the decision of the appellate court, since they decided the legal issues in this case, and they declared her legally ineffective, ultimately saying that defendant was left without counsel at all. Is this not incompetence? Shall I use the term 'ineffective'? Fine, she is ineffective.
@Anonymous: the only things that could be subject to a defamation suit are the factual allegations about what exactly the lawyer did (thumbs up, no opening statement, etc). Those, I presume, are pulled from the CoA opinion which (as already pointed out before I could respond) is about as solid a truth-defense to libel as you can get.
As for the accusation of "incompetence," even though it's not quite a fact supported by a finding of ineffective assistance, to the extent that it's not equivalent to ineffectiveness as a term of art, it's an unactionable expression of opinion.
It's unclear to me whether Susan Prentice-Sao's "issue" is incompetence or disgust with her client. If the latter, then her accepting representation of a defendant she cannot defend zealously is the gravamen of her professional failing.
This goes back to the discussion of lawyers seeing their duty as contingent on their personal perceptions of justice rather than the duty to zealously defend regardless of whatever personal feelings they may have about the crime of the criminal. If she could not satisfy her duty, she should have taken the case.
But then, she wouldn't have gotten the fee, and as is the case with so many young lawyers, nothing matters more than the fee.
re: "it seems she is a general practice attorney, you know, dabbling in criminal defense and also doing some bankruptcy here and there."
Specialization is nice when you can afford it. Vincent Bugliosi, for example, in his career as a criminal defense attorney was able to specialize only in cases where he personally believed the prospective client was innocent. I suppose an attorney could specialize only in self-defense cases, or in child molestation cases. For my part, I'd rather not do "some bankruptcy here and there," just as (I assume?) you'd rather not do immigration cases.
John, actually, at this point I could not do immigration work and be okay. But I like it and have developed a niche in criminal removal so it's worked out pretty well.
I also disagree that it's only nice when you can afford it. If it's just about the cash, then yes, take whatever comes in the door and worry about whether you are competent later – let the clients pay, right?
I used the loaded word "afford" to be deliberately contrarian, though I'm not ashamed to say that if I could "afford" it I might forsake the law entirely in favor of an occupation with better rules and less tragedy. I certainly am not disagreeing that a lawyer with more than one practice area risks overextending himself. No lawyer can "afford" to take on a case he's not competent to handle, no matter how much he needs the money.
It's all about competence. If her failure wasn't a lack of technical competence but an inability to competently defend because of her disgust at the client, then she was incompetent in this case even if she might be competent in another.
And if you can't do the job, don't do it.
Someone asked a question a criminal defense listserv yesterday. He'd taken an appointment and said he had no idea what to do. A list member (not a lawyer, which may help account for the honesty, wrote back, "BUT WHY WOULD THE COURT APPOINT YOU IF YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S GOING ON? AND, EVEN MORE WHY WOULD YOU ACCEPT THE APPOINTMENT?" (All caps from the original.)
If it's just about the money it's about the wrong thing and you need to find another line of work.
I am too pessimistic to believe there is an actual movement to ensure attorneys are not IAC.
I still adamantly believe judges go through a "harmless error" analysis in his/her head. Read: I really should grant this request but I do not will a higher court find it to be harmless error. Ok. Denied.
Readers who want to hear more about this should really read the actual decision. The gravity of the attorney's incompetence is striking.