Legal Question in Constitutional Law in Arizona

Re: court villoated constitution rights

If your boyfriend's lawyer failed to call necessary witnesses or argued against him that does not mean the court deprived him of his rights. The lawyer worked for your boyfriend and not for the court, so it is not the court's fault if the lawyer torpedos the case.

This distinction matters because errors by the court are appealable while errors by the attorney usually are not. In most instances of ineffective assistance of counsel, seeking a writ of habeas corpus is more likely to work instead of (or along with) an appeal.

However, it is not necessarily true that the lawyer handled things badly here. Arguing that your boyfriend was guilty of *some* of the charges against him, or of a less serious crime than the one of which he was accused, may have been the smart way to go. Where the prosecutor has proved part of her case so well that no one can doubt the defendant's guilt, it often makes sense for the lawyer to concede that part and to only fight the remaining part. After all, arguing against something that is obviously true would undermine her credibility, leaving the jury less likely to believe the rest of her argument. You say that your boyfriend was arrested for drug sales, and in such cases it is often wise to concede that the defendant is guilty of simple possession but to deny any involvement in sales. Conceding the obvious can significantly improve the odds of winning the rest of the case.

Likewise, sometimes calling a witness can be a bad idea. Some witnesses have shady backgrounds which might come out on cross-examination, or they might have testimony which the lawyer knows the jury will not believe. Here again, putting the witness on the stand can do more harm than good.

Defendants often want to see particular witnesses called to the stand even if the witness has nothing useful to say. Laypeople often don't realize that testimony which might seem relevant in normal conversations isn't necessarily relevant in a trial. Not calling a witness under these circumstances is usually the right way to go.

Are you sure the trial court denied your boyrfriend the right to face his accuser? If this is true then he would have a strong argument on appeal. But who was the accuser in this case? In drug cases the accuser is usually the police officer who finds the drugs, and it is rare for a court to deny a defendant the right to cross-examine the officer. Laypeople often think the accuser is the person who made a police report which led to the arrest, but that is usually not the case. Even if multiple people have knowledge of the underlying facts, the prosecutor does not need to use information from all of them. As long as everyone whose information is used is made avbailable for meaningful cross-examination, the defendant's right of confrontation is satisfied.