Manhattan trial attorney Michael Harrison has been named as the unidentified lawyer that is the subject of an ineffective counsel ruling where the court found that counsel fell asleep during trial, read magazines during witness testimony and gave such a rambling, implausible opening argument that the jury laughed.

Harrison has an impressive record of 600 cases that he has tried in this career. Yet, Judge Vincent M. Del Giudice said that his performance denied Edward Trujillo “meaningful representation” in his trial for possession of a loaded handgun.

Harrison disputes the account, but the court described the problems:

Defendant Trujillo has submitted an affidavit in which he claims his trial attorney was asleep at least three times during the trial and that he was reading health and fitness magazines during the course of witness’ testimony. Defendant also claims his counsel failed to explain the trial [*9]proceedings to him and would change the subject whenever the defendant broached the subject. Mr. Trujillo also claims his attorney gave a bizarre opening statement that caused the jurors to laugh at the attorney and at the defense. Mr. Trujillo also claims his attorney failed to adequately explain the options available when the issue of juror substitution was raised.

The court was remarkably understanding and sympathetic to the trial counsel, which it did not name:

Defendant Trujillo has submitted an affidavit in which he claims his trial attorney was asleep at least three times during the trial and that he was reading health and fitness magazines during the course of witness’ testimony. Defendant also claims his counsel failed to explain the trial [*9]proceedings to him and would change the subject whenever the defendant broached the subject. Mr. Trujillo also claims his attorney gave a bizarre opening statement that caused the jurors to laugh at the attorney and at the defense. Mr. Trujillo also claims his attorney failed to adequately explain the options available when the issue of juror substitution was raised.

The court did suggest that the behavior might have been caused by a pre-existing medical condition, though the reading of magazines does not normally fell into a medical profile.

“At one point during the trial, this court stopped the proceedings and required all parties to engage in a side bar, because I observed counsel for the defendant Trujillo apparently sleeping at the counsel table. The court asked counsel, at side bar, if he was feeling well and if he needed a break to eat or drink anything aware of a pre-existing medical condition of counsel and gave counsel every opportunity to revive himself, if necessary, prior to the continuation of the trial.”

During the Strickland test, the Supreme Court required that a “defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient,” and “that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.”

Lawyers sleeping in court has been a repeated problem, here and here. Sleeping jurors have also been raised on appeal, here. However, sleeping judges are apparently not a problem, here.

For the opinion, click here.