News
Criminal
Aug. 9, 2002
Attorney Who Called Client 'Lousy Addict' Was Ineffective, Panel Says
LOS ANGELES - An Orange County defense lawyer, who highlighted bad evidence against his client and overlooked the good during closing arguments, provided ineffective counsel to a Los Angeles man who stabbed his girlfriend, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.
In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that, after telling the jury that the case hinged on his client's credibility, defense attorney Kenneth Alan Reed referred to his client as a "bad person, lousy drug addict, stinking thief, jail bird."
"What is most striking about trial counsel's closing argument is that he mentioned a host of details that hurt his client's position, none of which mattered as a matter of law, while at the same time failing to mention those things that did matter," Judge Jerome Farris wrote in the majority opinion. Gentry v. Roe, 00-55691 (9th Cir. Aug. 8, 2002).
Reed, a Santa Ana lawyer, violated his client's Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel with his "rambling, perfunctory closing argument," the panel said, vacating the petitioner's conviction and referring the case back to the Central District for habeas review.
Reacting to the ruling, Reed defended his conduct, explaining that he did the best he could after his client insisted on testifying and denying his past convictions.
Reed said he tried to explain to the jury that, despite the fact that Lionel Gentry had lied about his past crimes, it did not mean that he wasn't telling the truth now, when he said the stabbing had been an accident.
"I was talking to a jury of 12 that had just heard him lie," Reed said. "I couldn't say he didn't lie. I had to embrace what he said and still say that he was telling the truth that day."
Reed said the jury foreman shook his hand after the verdict and said, "Mr. Reed, we tried."
The panel knew it was a three-strikes case, Reed said.
The defendant received a sentence of 39 years to life on charges of assault with a deadly weapon in the 1994 stabbing of his girlfriend, Tanaysha Handy, during an argument while they both were under the influence of alcohol and drugs, according to the trial transcript.
The testimony concerning the stabbing was confusing. Handy testified that she had no memory of Gentry assaulting her, but she recalled being stabbed twice, according to the trial transcript.
Gentry testified that he never intended to stab Handy.
The 2nd District Court of Appeal earlier had affirmed Gentry's conviction, and the state Supreme Court denied review. The U.S. District Court also denied review of Gentry's case.
The 9th Circuit panel, however, found not only that Reed's defense was poor but also that Gentry probably would have had a different outcome "in the absence of trial counsel's deficient performance."
Farris was joined in his opinion by Judge Procter Hug Jr.
Judge Barry G. Silverman dissented, saying his two colleagues missed the point. Silverman said that the only question that should have been before the court was whether the 2nd District Court of Appeal's decision was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law - which it was not.
Deputy Attorney General Shawn A. McGahey, who argued the appeal, said the office likely will ask for a rehearing en banc "because the majority decision clearly is wrong, as the dissent recognized."
Los Angeles Deputy Federal Defender James H. Locklin said he was pleased but would have no further comment until he had time to study the ruling.
#337187
Susan Mcraen
Daily Journal Staff Writer
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com