A Forsyth County judge took an unusual step in looking out for a defendant's right to effective counsel and also making sure that the conduct of the defendant's attorney was proper, a legal expert said yesterday.
Judge Catherine Eagles of Forsyth Superior Court on Wednesday ordered Raymond Marshall, a local lawyer, to appear at a show-cause hearing on May 6 to determine whether he violated the rules of professional conduct during a jury trial last month.
Eagles also asked Pete Clary, the Forsyth County public defender, to investigate whether Marshall effectively represented his client for a possible motion of appropriate relief, a post-conviction challenge to a conviction or a sentence.
Usually, it falls to the defendant to appeal on the basis of ineffective counsel, and judges look at the conduct of an attorney, said Kathryn Bradley, a professor and the director of legal ethics at Duke University School of Law.
"It looks like what the judge is trying to do is look at both of them," Bradley said.
Marshall was representing Tanesha Elaine Meekins, who was on trial on charges that she robbed a man in 2007. Prosecutors argued that she targeted the man because he was Hispanic and thus more likely to carry cash.
A jury convicted Meekins on March 18 of robbery with a dangerous weapon and carrying a concealed weapon. The jury found her not guilty of possession of marijuana.
Eagles delayed the sentencing until Wednesday.
On Wednesday, she delayed Meekins' sentencing again -- until April 19 -- after directing Clary to investigate whether Marshall effectively represented her.
Eagles cited a number of reasons for the show-cause hearing, including the fact that Marshall made faces to show his displeasure with her rulings, argued with her, and arrived late for court several times.
She also said that Marshall made numerous "incoherent, unclear and confusing statements and questions," and that he had stated in court that his performance was affected by not having taken his pain medication, leading to concerns that he might have been impaired.
"Your overall conduct was so unusual that it raises an inference that you were deliberately attempting to cause a mistrial by your own misconduct and/or deliberately attempting to goad the presiding judge to act out of frustration," Eagles said in the order.
Another judge will be assigned for the show-cause hearing, and an attorney from the N.C. State Bar will present evidence.
Marshall can hire an attorney to represent him or represent himself.
He declined to comment yesterday.
In 2006, Judge Michael Helms found Marshall guilty of contempt for uttering "Lord" and arguing with Helms during a trial.
The N.C. Court of Appeals overturned the conviction, saying that Helms made an error when he did not remove himself from the contempt hearing.
Bradley, the Duke professor, said she didn't have any opinion about what should happen to Marshall, but she said that it is important for judges to be alert to possible misconduct and to make sure that defendants are getting effective counsel.
"Judges should be responsive to what's happening in their courtroom," she said.
mhewlett@wsjournal.com
727-7326
Email
Facebook
Google
Twitter
Favorites
More
Advertisement