The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court raised a novel question this week: How much sleep can an attorney afford during a trial before it infringes upon a client’s constitutional right to counsel? Considering a motion for a new trial for a defendant convicted of murder after his lawyer was seen falling asleep during pivotal portions of the proceedings, the court set about defining a standard. This quest for a benchmark led them to examine the approaches of various federal circuit courts, some of which focused on the portion of the trial spent sleeping while others prioritized the importance of the trial segments in question.
Chief Justice Kimberly S. Budd emphasized the dire consequences of negligent counsel, calling attention to the inherent breaches of constitutional safeguards meant to ensure the right to effective legal representation. She wrote, “Although any slumber by counsel during trial is distressing and detrimental, counsel’s constructive absence during either a significant portion of trial or an important aspect of the trial so offends the constitutional protections surrounding the right to assistance of counsel that it renders the entire adversary process ‘presumptively unreliable’ and creates an uncurable error, ‘even if the error was ultimately harmless.'”
Her sentiments reflect the broader need for legal professionals to diligently serve their clients, notably during times of trials, where the stakes may not afford the luxury of a dozing defence. In providing a clearer definition of unacceptable sleeping conduct during trials, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision will likely reverberate through legal communities nationwide.