IN THE CRIMINAL COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE
STATE OF TENNESSEE,
vs.
No. 00 7864
DIVISION VIII
EARLE GILBERT
MOTION TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO SIT AT COUNSEL TABLE
IN ORDER THAT HE MAY CONSULT WITH COUNSEL AT ALL TIMES
DURING THE PROCEEDINGS
COMES NOW the defendant, Earl Gilbert, through his undersigned
counsel of record and moves this court pursuant to the Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution, to allow Mr. Gilbert to sit at
counsel table in order that he may consult with counsel at all times during the
sentencing proceedings.
A charged criminal defendant has an unqualified right to counsel,
especially during trial. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963); Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Except in a situation where the defendant
himself is testifying, Perry v. Leeke, 488 U.S. 272 (1989), the Sixth Amendment
forbids any impediment to Acommunication between a defendant and his
attorney, at least where that communication would not interfere with the orderly
and expeditious progress of the trial.@
Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80, 92
(1976)(Marshall, J., concurring); Geders, supra
(unconstitutional to restrict
discussions between defendant and counsel during overnight recess).
Especially during the trial itself, the defendant has a Aright to unrestricted
access to his lawyer for advice on a variety of trial-related matters.@ Perry v.
Leeke, 488 U.S. at 284 (emphasis supplied). Indeed, the opportunity to consult
during the trial is critical, because the defendant and his counsel must have the
opportunity to discuss tactical decisions, review strategies, and exchange
information as the trial continues. Absent immediate access to counsel which
otherwise does not distract the counsel, the court or the jury, a defendant is
denied his right to counsel and effective assistance from counsel.
Here, the Shelby County practice and custom in the past has been to
require the defendant to sit in a seat several feet behind his attorney. Having Mr.
Gilbert sit behind the attorney, prohibits the free exchange of information. For
Mr. Gilbert to communicate with his attorney, it would cause a greater distraction
to the jury and to counsel, since counsel would have to turn around and talk to
Mr. Gilbert. Furthermore, it is more difficult for the defendant to obtain the
attention of his counsel.
Mr. Gilbert is therefore constitutionally entitled to sit at counsel table to
ensure fair communication with his lawyer.
Respectfully submitted,
GLANKLER BROWN, PLLC
1700 One Commerce Square
Memphis, Tennessee 38103
901/525-1322
ByRobert L. Hutton
#15496