Brescia v. New Jersey

Background

Petitioner was convicted in state court of assault and battery on a police officer after a four-day trial. Because he was indigent, the court appointed a lawyer from the local Public Defender’s office. On the morning of the first day that lawyer said he was unprepared and had a close personal association with the State’s key witness, so the judge appointed another Public Defender lawyer who was in the courtroom. The substitute counsel said he was totally unprepared and asked for a continuance. The judge gave him only the noon recess—just over an hour—to review files, denied further delay, and forced the trial to begin. During the trial the substitute lawyer had not interviewed witnesses in advance, had not seen grand jury minutes or much of the prosecutor’s file, protested repeatedly, and called only brief interviews with his witnesses at the last moment. The defendant was convicted and sentenced to three to five years. The state appellate court affirmed and the New Jersey Supreme Court denied review; the U.S. Supreme Court also denied review.

Reasoning

The core question raised in the dissent was whether forcing a defendant to trial with a substitute lawyer who had almost no time to prepare deprived him of the Constitution’s guarantee of effective assistance of counsel. Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Brennan, reviewed precedent saying appointed counsel must have time and opportunity to prepare. He emphasized that the substitute lawyer had barely met the client, had not examined key materials, and had no time to develop a defense strategy. On those facts, Marshall argued the appointment had become a formality and the defendant’s right to meaningful help from counsel was likely violated. He would have granted review and heard argument on the issue.

Real world impact

Because the high court declined review, the conviction and three-to-five-year sentence remain in place. The Court’s denial did not resolve the constitutional question on its merits. In his dissent, Justice Marshall warned that forcing trials under these circumstances risks turning appointed counsel into a sham and leaving defendants without adequate defense.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall dissented from the denial of review and would have granted certiorari to consider the ineffective-assistance claim; Justice Brennan joined that dissent.