Adequacy of Fact Investigation in Criminal Defense Lawyers' Trial Preparation

• NCJ Number: 86945
• Journal: Arizona State Law Journal Volume: 1981 Issue: 2 Dated: (1981) Pages: 523-556
• Author(s): M L Steiner
• Date Published: 1981
• Length: 34 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This Phoenix study of the competence of criminal defense lawyers examines the following aspects of trial preparation: initial client interview, visit to the scene of the crime, prosecution witness interviews, and discovery from the prosecution.

Abstract

During 1979, law students interviewed 173 defense attorneys in Maricopa County, Ariz., using a series of questions about the lawyer's last felony case that came to trial. Many of these questions centered on the investigatory aspects of the attorney's trial preparation. It was found that 96.3 percent of the attorneys interviewed the defendant more than 30 days before trial, and so they met the constitutional requirement of an adequate time for preparation; however, 42.2 percent of the attorneys waited more than 3 days after becoming counsel of record before interviewing their clients. A total of 54.9 percent of the lawyers visited the scene of the crime. The majority of those attorneys who did not visit the crime scene gave plausible reasons for not doing so. Only 31.1 percent of the attorneys interviewed all prosecution witnesses. A total of 73.8 percent of the attorneys personally interviewed the witnesses, but a third person was present at the interviews in only 54.4 percent of the cases, which could result in problems at trial should impeachment of the witness become necessary. Attorneys preserved witness statements in 72.4 percent of the cases. Many (31.8 percent) of those not preserving statements intentionally chose not to do so to prevent discovery of the statements by the prosecution. Generally, the attorneys were thorough in obtaining discovery, but some did not receive discovery items as promptly as they might have under Arizona law. While the attorneys did some preparation in all cases, some did not follow all practices recommended by commentators; however, under the reasonable lawyer test, courts would probably find the preparation of Phoenix lawyers adequate. Tabular data and 160 footnotes are provided. For further information on the Phoenix study, see NCJ 86944 and 86946-47. (Author summary modified)