Supreme Court Reverses 7th Circuit’s Speakerphone Lawyer Ruling
Updated: The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against a man who contended his lawyer’s participation by speakerphone in a key hearing amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled (PDF posted by SCOTUSblog) for Joseph Van Patten, whose lawyer had participated by speakerphone when Van Patten entered a no-contest plea to reckless homicide.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the 7th Circuit today in an unsigned opinion without ruling on the merits of the speakerphone issue, the Associated Press reports.
The court said it would leave the speakerphone question for another day, SCOTUSblog reports. Instead the court ruled that Van Patten was not entitled to habeas relief because federal law did not clearly establish that appearances by speakerphone amount to ineffective assistance.
The 7th Circuit had granted habeas, saying Van Patten could not turn to his lawyer for reassurance during the hearing, and his lawyer would be unable to pick up visual cues that Van Patten did not understand the proceedings or was changing his mind.
Wisconsin’s cert petition (PDF posted by SCOTUSblog) had contended the 7th Circuit had exceeded its authority when it reinstated its original decision without modification after the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the ruling and told the appeals court to reconsider it. The petition argued the right to in-court presence of a lawyer was not clearly established.
The Supreme Court agreed the lawyer’s absence did not cause a constitutional problem. “Even if we agree with Van Patten that a lawyer physically present will tend to perform better than one on the phone, it does not necessarily follow that mere phone contact amounted to total absence or prevented counsel from assisting the accused,” the opinion said.
The case is Shawano County Sheriff v. Van Patten.
Story updated at 11 a.m. CST to include a summary of the opinion by SCOTUSblog.
