You might assume that any first-degree murder trial would be compelling enough to keep a defense lawyer awake, especially one representing the defendant. However, this isn’t always the case. And while it might seem logical that a defendant whose lawyer fell asleep during the trial should get a new trial due to “ineffective assistance of counsel,” it’s not that straightforward.
The key factor is how long and when the lawyer slept during the trial.
This issue has been considered by several courts, and the consensus is that while sleeping during a trial may be problematic, it doesn’t automatically warrant a new trial. Different courts have varying standards, with some using the “substantial portion” of the trial standard, while others focus on whether the lawyer slept during “critical times.”
In Massachusetts, the Supreme Judicial Court recently addressed this issue in Commonwealth v. Watts, where the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder. A new lawyer discovered that the original defense attorney had slept during parts of the trial, but the previous lawyer had dismissed the issue. After the defendant hired a third lawyer, new evidence about the sleeping was presented, including affidavits from people who were at the trial.
While the affidavits varied, some witnesses said the defense attorney slept during important parts of the trial, including jury selection and testimony from a key prosecution witness. However, the trial judge ruled that the lawyer’s napping didn’t constitute a constitutional violation. The case was then appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which concluded that if a lawyer sleeps during a “significant portion” of the trial or during crucial moments, it can be considered deprivation of counsel.
This court’s analysis added a dual approach: if the lawyer sleeps for a significant portion of the trial or during an important part, the defendant is entitled to a new trial. In this case, they decided the defendant’s trial warranted a new one, as the lawyer had likely slept through critical moments, including key witness testimony.
While some might argue the evidence of sleep was insufficient to warrant a new trial, the court’s decision underscores the importance of a defendant having a fully attentive lawyer during a murder trial. A new trial is necessary when a lawyer is effectively absent due to sleep, especially in serious cases like this one.
