From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sparman v. Edwards

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Aug 25, 1998
154 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 1998)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

affirming district court's grant of writ of habeas corpus based on determination that petitioner's counsel at his state trial had been constitutionally ineffective; noting with approval that the district court held an evidentiary hearing at which trial counsel, charged with ineffectiveness in the handling of petitioner's defense, testified

Summary of this case from Burch v. Millas
See 16 Summaries

Opinion

Nos. 97-2825; 97-2855.

Argued: August 6, 1998.

Decided: August 25, 1998.

Appeal from a grant of habeas corpus, which was granted pursuant to a finding that petitioner's counsel in his state court trial had been constitutionally ineffective. Affirmed.

ROBERT J. ANELLO, Morvillo, Abramovitz, Iason Silberberg, P.C., New York, NY, for petitioner — appellee — cross-appellant.

ANTHEA H. BRUFFEE, Assistant District Attorney, Kings County, NY, for respondent — appellant — cross-appellee.

Before: CALABRESI, CABRANES, and STRAUB, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Respondent appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Gleeson, J.) granting a writ of habeas corpus to petitioner after determining that petitioner's counsel at his state trial had been constitutionally ineffective. We affirm the judgment of the district court substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Gleeson in his Memorandum and Order, Sparman v. Edwards, 95-CV-4689 (JG) (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 2, 1997), ___ F. Supp. ___ (E.D.N.Y. 1997).

We note in passing that Judge Gleeson held an evidentiary hearing at which petitioner's trial counsel, who was then (and now) charged with ineffectiveness in the handling of petitioner's defense, testified. We believe that a district court facing the question of constitutional ineffectiveness of counsel should, except in highly unusual circumstances, offer the assertedly ineffective attorney an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, in the form of live testimony, affidavits, or briefs. Cf. United States v. Dukes, 727 F.2d 34, 41 n. 6 (2d Cir. 1984).

In light of our decision to affirm the judgment of the district court, we need not address petitioner's claim on cross-appeal that he was denied a fair trial by the prosecutor's mischaracterization of the evidence in her closing argument. By declining to reach this issue, we do not suggest in any way that the prosecutor's statements were appropriate or sustainable or that they were "fair responses to defendant's summation arguments."

The decision of the district court is affirmed.

Summaries of

Sparman v. Edwards

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Aug 25, 1998
154 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 1998)

affirming district court's grant of writ of habeas corpus based on determination that petitioner's counsel at his state trial had been constitutionally ineffective; noting with approval that the district court held an evidentiary hearing at which trial counsel, charged with ineffectiveness in the handling of petitioner's defense, testified

Summary of this case from Burch v. Millas

affirming Judge Gleeson's grant of habeas corpus "substantially for the reasons" he provided

Summary of this case from Schulz v. Marshall

explaining that, "except in highly unusual circumstances," a lawyer charged with ineffectiveness should be given "an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, in the form of live testimony, affidavits, or briefs"

Summary of this case from United States v. Smith

explaining that, "except in highly unusual circumstances," a lawyer charged with ineffectiveness should be given "an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, in the form of live testimony, affidavits, or briefs"

Summary of this case from United States v. Brennerman

explaining that, "except in highly unusual circumstances," a lawyer charged with ineffectiveness should be given "an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, in the form of live testimony, affidavits, or briefs"

Summary of this case from United States v. Diaz

explaining that a district court evaluating an ineffective assistance of counsel claim should provide such an opportunity to counsel “except in highly unusual circumstances”

Summary of this case from Fulton v. Graham

In Sparman v. Edwards, 154 F.3d 51, 52 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam), we explained that "a district court facing the question of constitutional ineffectiveness of counsel should, except in highly unusual circumstances, offer the assertedly ineffective attorney an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, in the form of live testimony, affidavits, or briefs."

Summary of this case from Greiner v. Wells

stating that "a district court facing the question of constitutional ineffectiveness of counsel should, except in highly unusual circumstances, offer the assertedly ineffective attorney an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, in the form of live testimony, affidavits, or briefs"

Summary of this case from Zheng v. U.S. Department of Justice

stating that "a district court facing the question of constitutional ineffectiveness of counsel should, except in highly unusual circumstances, offer the assertedly ineffective attorney an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, in the form of live testimony, affidavits, or briefs"

Summary of this case from Eze v. Senkowski

stating that, "except in highly unusual circumstances," the assertedly ineffective attorney should be offered an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Williams

stating that, "except in highly unusual circumstances," the assertedly ineffective attorney should be offered an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Williams

noting that an attorney accused of providing ineffective assistance should have the opportunity to be heard and to present evidence in response

Summary of this case from United States v. Garcia

In Sparman, the court explained that counsel should have known to interview the witness prior to trial in part because the defendant so instructed.

Summary of this case from Schulz v. Marshall

In Sparman, the court found that trial counsel was constitutionally deficient in failing, inter alia, to interview a witness who had information that a third party — not the defendant — had committed the crime.

Summary of this case from Schulz v. Marshall

In Sparman, the Second Circuit held that where claims of ineffectiveness are raised in a habeas petition, the "assertedly ineffective attorney [may be afforded] an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, in the form of live testimony, affidavits, or briefs."

Summary of this case from Benvenuto v. U.S.

In Sparman v. Edwards, 154 F.3d 51, 52 (2d Cir. 1998), the Second Circuit held that "a district court facing the question of constitutional ineffectiveness of counsel should, except in highly unusual circumstances, offer the assertedly ineffective attorney an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence in the form of live testimony, affidavits, or briefs."Id.

Summary of this case from Flores v. Keane
Case details for

Sparman v. Edwards

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY SPARMAN, PETITIONER — APPELLEE — CROSS-APPELLANT, v. ERNEST…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Aug 25, 1998

Citations

154 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 1998)

Citing Cases

Pepe v. Walsh

” Pursuant to Sparman v. Edwards, 154 F.3d 51 (2d Cir.1998), “[A] district court facing the question of…

Schulz v. Marshall

The Court also determined, by Order dated September 10, 2007 (the "September 10 Order"), that the petition…

140 Citing Cases