WAS DEFENDANT GRANTED A FAIR TRIAL

Fact: These are the facts involving the case of defendant . Defendant was charged on September 18, 1985 with having committed the offenses of sexual assault, burglary and making harassing communications calls, all against complaining witness, on August 1, 1985 (as to the burglary and sexual assault charges) and between August 23rd through 25th of August) ( as to making harassing communications calls), respectively. Approximately three days before the trial of this case, defense attorney filed and argued a motion to withdraw as counsel for the defendant. This motion was based on the facts that the defendant and his family had attempted to discharge attorney as the defendant's attorney and further had stopped cooperating with said lawyer as a result of their attempts to discharge the attorney of his duties defendant's defense attorney. During the course of the hearing had on defense attorney's motion to withdraw, attorney never disclosed what the disagreement and/or of this hearing, the defendant was not present, and no question and/or testimony was put to and taken from the defendant's family which might have explained why defendant lawyers services were no longer desired.
During the course of voir dire examination, a deputy sheriff was examined as a prospective juror, and later empanelled as a juror in this case. The deputy, at the time he served on the jury which tried defendant case, was also employed as a deputy sheriff for Pulaski County, Arkansas. During the course of his employment, deputy sheriff not only served as one of defendant jailers, but also has access to and did review defendant's jail file as defendant remained an inmate at the Pulaski County Jail from approximately August, 1985 until February, 1986. (Later, during the course of a hearing pursuant Rule 37 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure, the defendant also testified that, prior to the trial of this case, while defendant was incarcerated in the Pulaski County Jail, deputy sheriff had questioned him(defendant about the facts involved in this case)
During the course of the opening statement made by the defendant attorney's to the jury, one of the attorney stated the following: The prosecutor today stating that they believe that the facts indicate that a sexual assault occurred at victims' house on August 1, 1985. Let's see what truths we can glean already. First of all, one truth that we know and the defendant will admit, he was at victims' house on the night of July 31,1985. The second truth which defendant will admit. He had sexual intercourse the victim on the night of July 31, 1985. Third truth. He had sexual intercourse in her home, indeed in her bedroom, on July 31, 1985. The state argues today that rape. They point out to you that his fingerprints are all over the house. We have no problem. Defendant indeed will admit his fingerprints are in that house, but this was a date. This was not rape . He went over therefor the purpose of having a date and engaging in sexual intercourse. He will readily admit that. That is one of the truths that he will admit to. But they are claiming that it's rape. We have no problem if they show that his fingerprints were all through the house. He admits that. He was over there that night the night of July 31, 1985. He was over there for a date with her. The State has also pointed out to you that on that on numerous occasions, after this date, the defendant calls her . He'll admit that. He called her to see if he could maintain the relationship. He had her phone number. The State is trying to show today that this is a stranger who breaks into a woman's house and commits rape, but he had her phone number and he called her afterwards to see if he could come back again...
This line of argument was continued by the defendant's attorney during the course of his closing statement, despite the fact that no witness was called to testify as to the actual relationship, if any, the defendant and victim maintained prior and/or during the time of the sexual assault.
These facts are set out herein to highlight and demonstrate the true nature of the true nature of the assistance which the defendant received from his counsel during the course of this trial. They also form the foundation of clear pattern of ineffective assistance of counsel.