US v. Nicholas Ragin

Filing

PUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:04-cr-00271-RJC-7,3:10-cv-00488-RJC. [999772359]. [14-7245]

Appeal: 14-7245

Doc: 62

Filed: 03/11/2016

Pg: 1 of 31

PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7245

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NICHOLAS RAGIN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:04-cr-00271-RJC-7; 3:10-cv-00488-RJC)

Argued:

December 10, 2015

Before GREGORY
Circuit Judge.

and

SHEDD,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

March 11, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Vacated and remanded by published opinion. Judge Gregory wrote
the opinion, in which Judge Shedd and Senior Judge Davis joined.

ARGUED:
Matthew Gridley Pruden, TIN, FULTON, WALKER & OWEN,
PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. William Michael
Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF:
Jill Westmoreland Rose,
United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Appeal: 14-7245

Doc: 62

Filed: 03/11/2016

Pg: 2 of 31

GREGORY, Circuit Judge:
This appeal presents an issue of first impression in this
Circuit:

whether a defendant’s right to effective assistance of

counsel is violated when his counsel sleeps during trial.

We

hold that a defendant is deprived of his Sixth Amendment right
to counsel when counsel sleeps during a substantial portion of
the defendant’s trial.
The

Sixth

Amendment

guarantees

a

criminal

assistance of counsel for his defense.
Although

generally

a

defendant

must

defendant

the

U.S. Const. amend. VI.
show

that

his

counsel’s

performance was deficient and prejudicial to prevail on a claim
of

ineffective

assistance

of

counsel,

see

Strickland

v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), in United States v. Cronic, 466
U.S. 648 (1984), the Supreme Court held that there are certain
situations

where

questionable
actually

that

the

reliability

the

defendant

prejudiced.

believe

that

through

a

when

Instead,
counsel

substantial

for

portion

of

need

a

trial

not

show

prejudice
a
of

is

criminal
the

becomes
that

he

presumed.
defendant

trial,

such

so
was
We

sleeps
conduct

compromises the reliability of the trial, and thus no separate
showing of prejudice is necessary.
This

case

presents

such

a

situation.

Nicholas

Ragin’s

Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated not because of
specific legal errors or omissions indicating incompetence in

2

Appeal: 14-7245

Doc: 62

Filed: 03/11/2016

Pg: 3 of 31

counsel’s representation but because Ragin effectively had no
legal assistance during a substantial portion of his trial.

The

evidence

was

is

not

disputed;

it

demonstrates

asleep for much of Ragin’s trial.

that

counsel

As one witness testified,

counsel was asleep “[f]requently . . . almost every day . . .
morning and evening” for “30 minutes at least” at a time.

These

circumstances suggest “a breakdown in the adversarial process
that our system counts on to produce just results,” Strickland,
466 U.S. at 696, and from which we must presume prejudice to
Ragin.
We therefore conclude that Ragin was deprived of effective
assistance
Sixth

of

counsel

Amendment.

during

his

Accordingly,

trial,

we

in

reverse

violation
the

order

of

the

denying

relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and remand for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.

I.
A.
On October 18, 2004, a grand jury in the Western District
of North Carolina returned an indictment that charged Ragin,
along

with

six

codefendants,

substantive

offenses

prostitution

and

drug

related
rings.

with
to

conspiracy
their

Following

the

and

other

involvement

in

indictment,

the

district court appointed Nikita V. Mackey as counsel for Ragin.

3

Appeal: 14-7245

Doc: 62

Filed: 03/11/2016

Pg: 4 of 31

The grand jury subsequently returned a superseding indictment
that

charged

offenses

Ragin

against

with

the

two

United

counts:
States,

conspiracy
including

to

commit

enticing

and

coercing individuals to travel in interstate commerce to engage
in prostitution, interstate transportation of minors to engage
in prostitution, and interstate wire transfer of funds in aid of
racketeering enterprises, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; and
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and
to employ, hire, use, persuade, induce, entice and coerce minors
in furtherance thereof, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846,
and 861.
Ragin pleaded not guilty and was tried before a jury along
with three of his codefendants, Tracy Howard, David Howard, and
Oscar Solano-Sanchez.
21,

2006,

and

witnesses.

Of

direct

The trial lasted from April 3 to April

included
those

involvement

testimony

witnesses,

in

the

from

six

approximately

testified

conspiracy,

while

about
the

forty
Ragin’s

remainder

testified about the acts of the other defendants.
At the conclusion of trial, the jury found Ragin guilty on
both counts.

On June 25, 2006, three months after trial and

prior to sentencing, Ragin submitted a handwritten letter to the
district

court

alleged,

among

in

which

other

he

complained

things,

that

4

about

“[Mackey]

Mackey.
even

Ragin
had

the

Appeal: 14-7245

Doc: 62

Filed: 03/11/2016

Pg: 5 of 31

audacity to fall asleep ‘twice’ during the trial.”

Supp. J.A.

790.
At

sentencing,

the

district

court

calculated

a

total

offense level of 40 and a criminal history category of VI based
on Ragin’s accumulation of 16 criminal history points, resulting
in a guidelines range of 360 months to life in prison.
court sentenced Ragin to 360 months in prison.
affirmed

Ragin’s

conviction

and

sentence.

The

We subsequently
United

States

v.

Howard, 309 F. App’x 760 (4th Cir. 2009) (unpublished).
B.
On

October

1,

2010,

Ragin

moved,

pursuant

to

28

U.S.C.

§ 2255, to have his conviction and sentence vacated.

In the

motion, Ragin raised eleven claims for relief, including ten
allegations accusing Mackey of providing ineffective assistance
of

counsel.

Ragin’s

seventh

asleep during the trial.”

claim

J.A. 27.

was

that

“[c]ounsel

fell

Ragin described a single

incident during which he “noticed that [Mackey] was sleeping.”
Id.
In conjunction with his § 2255 motion, Ragin submitted a
sworn

affidavit

assistance

of

elaborating

counsel

on

claims.

eight

of

Consistent

his
with

ineffective
his

earlier

allegation in his post-trial letter, in paragraph eight of the
affidavit,

Ragin

stated,

“Finally

5

counsel

fell

asleep

twice

Appeal: 14-7245

Doc: 62

Filed: 03/11/2016

Pg: 6 of 31

during trial which more than shows his lack of interest and
dedication to my case.”
After

the

J.A. 64.

government

filed

a

response

opposing

Ragin’s

motion, the district court issued an order, concluding that “an
evidentiary hearing is necessary to resolve Petitioner’s claim
that his attorney provided ineffective assistance when he fell
asleep during trial.”

J.A. 113-14.
C.

At the evidentiary hearing, Ragin called three witnesses,
Peter Adolf, Richard Culler, and Pamela Vernon, and testified on
his

own

behalf.

The

government

called

Special

Agent

Terrell Tadeo and Mackey.
Adolf, who represented codefendant David Howard at trial,
testified that he “definitely” noticed Mackey sleeping on one
occasion.

J.A.

prosecution’s

case

131.
in

Adolf
chief,

recalled

government

that,
counsel

during

the

approached

Mackey to show him an exhibit that they intended to introduce.
“[Government counsel] walked over to Mr. Mackey, and I remember
that Mr. Mackey was sort of sitting back, leaning back in his
chair with his left elbow on his left thigh, . . . and sort of
with his chin resting on his fist, and [government counsel] held
the document in front of him and he didn’t move, he sort of sat
there.”

J.A. 132.

“Judge Conrad leaned into his microphone,

because we were all sitting there and [Mackey] wasn’t moving and

6

Appeal: 14-7245

Doc: 62

Filed: 03/11/2016

Pg: 7 of 31

said, ‘Mr. Mackey’ . . . very loudly.”

Id.

Mackey then “jumped

up and sort of looked around and was licking his lips and moving
his mouth and looked sort of confused and looked all over the
room except at [government counsel].

And after a few seconds,

he saw [government counsel] standing there and looked at the
document.”

J.A. 133.

After Mackey reviewed the document, he

“went back into the position that he was [in] before with his
chin

on

his

testifying

fist.”

at

the

Id.

time

Adolf

or

what

did

not

document

remember

the

who

was

government

was

showing.
Adolf did not specifically recall any other occasions where
he noticed Mackey sleeping.

Adolf made clear, however, that he

“really didn’t pay a lot of attention to what [Mackey] was doing
throughout the trial” because he “was dealing with [his] own
client and [the client’s] own issues;” Mackey “wasn’t directly
in [his] line of sight unless [he] looked to the right [and]
. . . [he] was [paying attention to the evidence].”

J.A. 134-

35.
Similarly, Culler, who represented codefendant Tracy Howard
at

trial,

occasion.

testified
Mackey’s

that

he

“head

noticed
[was]

Mackey

down

sleeping

. . .

breathing very regularly as if he was sleeping.”

[and

on
he

one
was]

J.A. 145-46.

Culler further testified that he stated to Adolf that Mackey was
“asleep again.”

J.A. 145.

Although Culler did not specifically

7

Appeal: 14-7245

Doc: 62

Filed: 03/11/2016

Pg: 8 of 31

recall any other incidents, based on his statement that Mackey
was “asleep again,” he “believe[d]” that Mackey was asleep on
“one other occasion.”

J.A. 146.

Culler, like Adolf, made clear

that he “was focused on the witnesses at that time because they
were talking about [his] client mostly.

And so [he] didn’t pay

any attention to Mr. Mackey after seeing [him asleep].”
151.

J.A.

Further, based on Culler’s description of the courtroom,

it appears that Mackey was not in his direct line of sight. 1
Vernon, a juror in this case, testified that she noticed
Mackey

sleeping

“[f]requently

. . .

almost

every

day

. . .

morning and evening” for “30 minutes at least” at a time.
153-55.

Based

on

the

courtroom

setup,

“directly across from [the jurors].”

Mackey

J.A. 153.

was

sitting

“We could see

[Mackey] clearly, and we were facing [him] completely.”
Vernon

specifically

recalled

that

J.A.

“[e]vidence

was

Id.
being

presented and . . . witnesses were being questioned” when Mackey
was

asleep.

appearance

J.A.

during

154.

those

When
times,

asked
Vernon

to
said

describe
that

he

Mackey’s
appeared

“[t]otally dozed off” and had “his hand on the table and head
down and did not appear to be alert at all.”

Id.

When Mackey

was called on during trial, Ragin “would have to punch him . . .
or kind of rouse[] him.”

J.A. 155-56.

1

Additionally, Culler did not recall at which point during
the trial the sleeping incidents occurred.

8

Appeal: 14-7245

In

Doc: 62

Filed: 03/11/2016

addition,

Vernon

Pg: 9 of 31

testified

that

other

jurors

noticed

Mackey sleeping and commented on it in the jury room.
cross-examining

Vernon

about

Mackey’s

conduct,

the

While

government

asked whether, during jury deliberations, Vernon “h[e]ld [her]
observation
. . .

did

of
you

defendant.”
Id.

Mr.

Mackey

consider

J.A. 157.

resting
that

his

in

head

your

against

verdict

[Ragin],

against

Vernon stated, “We discussed it.

the
Yes.”

Vernon found Ragin guilty on both counts.
Ragin

also

testified

that

Mackey

was

asleep

frequently.

During his testimony at the evidentiary hearing, Ragin expanded
on

his

initial

allegation,

claiming

that

he

observed

Mackey

sleeping between ten and twenty times for up to ten minutes at a
time.

Ragin said he had to nudge Mackey on several occasions

when Mackey failed to respond to testimony presented at trial.
As he sat next to Mackey during the trial, Ragin heard him
snoring and observed his eyes closed.

On at least one occasion,

Mackey asked Ragin what he missed.
In addition, Ragin introduced an exhibit containing pages
he

initialed

from

the

trial

transcript,

when he asserts Mackey was sleeping.
initialed

covered

testimony

from

each

indicating

occasions

The twenty pages Ragin
of

the

witnesses

who

testified about Ragin’s direct involvement in the conspiracy.
Ragin did note, however, that the transcript pages he identified
did not cover all of the testimony that was offered while Mackey

9

Appeal: 14-7245

Doc: 62

Filed: 03/11/2016

Pg: 10 of 31

was sleeping and that Mackey also slept while other witnesses
testified.

On cross-examination, Ragin acknowledged that he had

only alleged that Mackey was asleep on two occasions in his
letter to the district court and in his sworn § 2255 motion and
affidavit, and admitted that he had not included any details
about

the

witnesses

who

were

testifying

or

the

their testimony in his initial allegations.

substance

of

Ragin explained

that when he filed the letter and § 2255 motion and affidavit,
he

was

acting

transcript.

pro

se

and

did

not

have

access

to

the

trial

Reading through the trial transcript refreshed his

recollection on when exactly Mackey was sleeping.
The government called Tadeo and Mackey as witnesses.

Tadeo

testified that he saw Mackey “nod off” on at least one, possibly
two, occasions.

Tadeo described “nodding off” as “kind of eyes

closed, head dropping” and “struggling to stay awake.”
179.

J.A.

Tadeo testified that his focus during trial was on the

evidence presented and that he was “pay[ing] attention to what
witnesses

[were]

saying.”

J.A.

182.

The

witness

box

was

located directly across from the government’s table, where Tadeo
sat.

Mackey was not in Tadeo’s direct line of sight.

could

not

recall

who

was

testifying

at

the

time

Tadeo

Mackey

was

“nodding off.”
Mackey testified that he did not recall whether he slept
during the trial.

Mackey explained that he thought he “would

10

Appeal: 14-7245

Doc: 62

Filed: 03/11/2016

Pg: 11 of 31

have recalled something like that” and that he would expect that
the district court, his client, or one of the other attorneys
would have addressed it on the record if it had been an issue.
J.A. 221.

At the time of this trial, Mackey was running for

state district court judge.

According to Mackey, he first heard

of the sleeping allegations while he was running for sheriff and
viewed them as “political . . . fodder.”

J.A. 222.

D.
After the evidentiary hearing, the district court issued an
order denying and dismissing Ragin’s § 2255 motion.

The court

held that the requisite showing of prejudice for ineffective
assistance

of

counsel

varies

depending

on

the

evidence:

a

presumption of prejudice only applies “when the evidence shows
counsel slept through a ‘substantial portion’ of the defendant’s
trial,” whereas the ordinary standard requiring the defendant to
demonstrate

prejudice

applies

in

all

other

isolated allegations that counsel was asleep.

cases

involving

Ragin v. United

States, No. 3:10-cv-488-RJC, 2014 WL 4105898, at *7 (W.D.N.C.
Aug. 19, 2014) (citing Muniz v. Smith, 647 F.3d 619 (6th Cir.
2011), and Burdine v. Johnson, 262 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2001) (en
banc)).
After
presented,
asleep

for

consideration
the

district

‘substantial

of

the

court

testimony

“f[ound]

portions’

11

of

that

the

and
Mackey

trial.”

evidence
was
Id.

not
In

Appeal: 14-7245

Doc: 62

support

of

Filed: 03/11/2016

its

finding,

the

Pg: 12 of 31

court

determined

that

Ragin’s

testimony and his exhibit “listing ten to fifteen times during
the

trial

that

Mackey

was

asleep

[were]

not

credible

. . .

[because] Ragin ha[d] great incentive to embellish his claim at
this

stage

in

the

proceedings.”

Id.

The

court

did

find

credible, apparently, Ragin’s earlier accusation, “made within
three

months

occasions,

of

and

the

that

trial,”
this

that

Mackey

allegation

was

was

asleep

consistent

on

two

with

the

testimony of Culler, Adolf and Tadeo; each testified that Mackey
appeared to be sleeping on one or two occasions.

Id.

Further,

the court did not find Vernon’s testimony credible because she
“repeatedly
testimony,

referred
[and]

sentence imposed.”

to

may

be

Id.

Ragin

by

his

remorseful

first

for

the

name

during

severity

of

her
the

“It is telling,” the court stated, that

“neither Ragin nor the juror brought Mackey’s alleged sleeping
to the attention of the Court during the trial when it could
have

been

frequently.”

effectively

addressed

if

it

were

occurring

so

Id.

The district court held that “[e]ven if Mackey fell asleep
once or twice during the protracted trial involving over forty
witnesses, the [trial] transcript reflects his attention to the
six witnesses who directly implicated Ragin.”

Id.

The district

court, therefore, “appl[ied] the usual Strickland standard and

12

Appeal: 14-7245

Doc: 62

Filed: 03/11/2016

Pg: 13 of 31

[would] not presume prejudice.” 2
the

trial

transcript,”

the

Id.

court

After “careful review of

found

that,

based

on

the

“substantial evidence against him, Ragin ha[d] not demonstrated
a reasonable probability of a different outcome” and, therefore,
that “the result of the trial was not fundamentally unfair or
unreliable.”

Id. at *8.

In light of its findings, the district

court denied Ragin’s § 2255 motion.
Ragin

filed

a

timely

notice

of

appeal,

and

we

have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

II.
A.
We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions in
denying a § 2255 motion.
350 (4th Cir. 2008).
of

law

and

fact

United States v. Stitt, 552 F.3d 345,

We also review de novo any mixed questions

addressed

by

the

court

as

to

whether

the

petitioner has established a valid Sixth Amendment ineffective
2

In an alternative holding, the district court stated that
even if it presumed prejudice, it would have found that the
weight of the evidence against Ragin would overcome that
prejudice. Ragin, 2014 WL 4105898, at *7 n.6. Although this is
not critical to our analysis, we note that this was legal error.
See, e.g., Wright v. Van Patten, 552 U.S. 120, 124 (2008)
(“Cronic held that a Sixth Amendment violation may be found
‘without
inquiring
into
counsel’s
actual
performance
or
requiring the defendant to show the effect it had on the trial’
when ‘circumstances [exist] that are so likely to prejudice the
accused that the cost of litigating their effect in a particular
case is unjustified.’”
(alteration in original) (quoting Bell
v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 695 (2002))).

13

Appeal: 14-7245

Doc: 62

Filed: 03/11/2016

assistance claim.
(4th

Cir.

Pg: 14 of 31

See Smith v. Angelone, 111 F.3d 1126, 1131

1997)

(“Whether

counsel’s

performance

was

constitutionally adequate is a mixed question of law and fact
which we review de novo.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
When the court conducts an evidentiary hearing prior to ruling,
we review its findings of fact for clear error.
F.3d at 350.

See Stitt, 552

“A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although

there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the
entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed.”

United States v. Dugger,

485 F.3d 236, 239 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. U.S.
Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)).
B.
An

accused’s

right

to

be

represented

by

counsel

fundamental component of our criminal justice system.
in criminal cases “are necessities, not luxuries.”
Wainwright,

372

U.S.

335,

344

(1963).

“Their

is

a

Lawyers
Gideon v.

presence

is

essential because they are the means through which the other
rights of the person on trial are secured.”
653.

Cronic, 466 U.S. at

“Of all the rights that an accused person has, the right

to be represented by counsel is by far the most pervasive for it
affects his ability to assert any other rights he may have.”
Id. at 654.

14

Appeal: 14-7245

Doc: 62

Filed: 03/11/2016

Pg: 15 of 31

In Strickland, the Supreme Court set forth a two-part test
for deciding ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
at

687.

First,

performance

was

the

defendant

deficient.”

“must

Id.

To

show
prove

that

466 U.S.
counsel’s

deficiency,

a

defendant “must show that counsel’s representation fell below an
objective standard of reasonableness.”

Id. at 688.

Second, the

defendant must show that the deficient performance resulted in
actual prejudice to the defendant.

Id. at 687.

A showing of

prejudice requires the defendant to prove that “counsel’s errors
were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a
trial whose result is reliable.”

Id.

Strickland and its companion case Cronic gave more specific
instructions on finding prejudice.

The Court stated that in

certain limited contexts, “prejudice is presumed.”
466 U.S. at 692.
Strickland

rule

Strickland,

In Cronic, the Court reiterated the general
and

also

provided

that

“[t]here

are

. . .

circumstances that are so likely to prejudice the accused that
the cost of litigating their effect in a particular case is
unjustified.”

Cronic, 466 U.S. at 658.

The Court identified

three distinct situations in which a presumption of prejudice is
appropriate:

First, prejudice is presumed when the defendant is

completely denied counsel “at a critical stage of his trial.”
Id. at 659.

Second, prejudice is presumed if there has been a

constructive denial of counsel.

Id.

15

This happens when a lawyer

Appeal: 14-7245

Doc: 62

“fails

to

Filed: 03/11/2016

subject

the

Pg: 16 of 31

prosecution’s

case

to

meaningful

adversarial testing,” thus making “the adversary process itself
presumptively unreliable.”

Id.

Third, the Court identified

certain instances “when although counsel is available to assist
the accused during trial, the likelihood that any lawyer, even a
fully competent one, could provide effective assistance is so
small that a presumption of prejudice is appropriate without
inquiry into the actual conduct of the trial.”

Id. (citing, as

an example, Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932)).
That a case warrants a finding of presumed prejudice under
any of these three prongs is “an extremely high showing for a
criminal defendant to make.”
(4th

Cir.

1998).

If,

Brown v. French, 147 F.3d 307, 313

however,

the

defendant

makes

such

a

showing, it would necessarily follow that there was a structural
error,

which,

by

definition,

“affect[s]

the

framework

within

which the trial proceeds” and prevents the trial from “reliably
serv[ing] its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt
or innocence.”

Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310 (1991).

Therefore,

Cronic

errors

are

structural,

requiring

automatic reversal without any inquiry into the existence of
actual prejudice.
held

that

inquiring

a

Sixth

into

See, e.g., Wright, 552 U.S. at 124 (“Cronic
Amendment

counsel’s

violation

actual

may

performance

be
or

found

‘without

requiring

the

defendant to show the effect it had on the trial.’” (quoting

16

Appeal: 14-7245

Doc: 62

Filed: 03/11/2016

Pg: 17 of 31

Bell, 535 U.S. at 695)); Musladin v. Lamarque, 555 F.3d 830,
837-38

(9th

automatic

Cir.

reversal

2009)
is

(“Cronic

required

specifically

where

a

holds

defendant

is

that
denied

counsel at a ‘critical stage,’ and we cannot depart from that
holding.”); United States v. Arbolaez, 450 F.3d 1283, 1294 (11th
Cir. 2006) (explaining that the “constructive denial of counsel
is

‘legally

presumed

to

result

in

prejudice’

and

thus

to

constitute a structural error” (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at
692)).

In

other

words,

“counsel’s

incompetence

can

be

so

serious that it rises to the level of a constructive denial of
counsel which can constitute constitutional error without any
showing

of

prejudice.”

Strickland,

466

U.S.

at

703

n.2

(Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (citing
Javor v. United States, 724 F.2d 831, 834 (9th Cir. 1984), for
the

proposition

that

“unconscious

or

sleeping

counsel

is

equivalent to no counsel at all”).
Absent
under

these

Cronic,

Strickland.

that

circumstances

defendants

must

show

of

presumed

actual

prejudice

prejudice

under

See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692; Cronic, 466 U.S.

at 666 & n.41.
“show

narrow

there

Actual prejudice requires that the defendant
is

a

reasonable

probability

that,

but

for

counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding
would

have

been

different.

A

17

reasonable

probability

is

a

Appeal: 14-7245

Doc: 62

Filed: 03/11/2016

Pg: 18 of 31

probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694.

III.
Although

this

is

a

case

of

first

impression

in

this

Circuit, four other circuits have considered whether application
of a presumption of prejudice under Cronic is warranted when a
defendant’s

counsel

is

asleep

during

trial.

All

of

these

circuits have held that prejudice must be presumed when counsel
sleeps either through a “substantial portion of [a defendant’s]
trial” or at a critical time during trial.

Javor, 724 F.2d at

834 (“When a defendant’s attorney is asleep during a substantial
portion of his trial, the defendant has not received the legal
assistance necessary to defend his interests at trial.”); see
also

Muniz,

647

F.3d

at

625-26

(“Muniz

must

show

that

his

attorney slept through a substantial portion of the trial for
the Cronic presumption of prejudice to attach.”); Burdine, 262
F.3d at 341 (“[W]e conclude that a defendant’s Sixth Amendment
right to counsel is violated when that defendant’s counsel is
repeatedly unconscious through not insubstantial portions of the
defendant’s capital murder trial.”); Tippins v. Walker, 77 F.3d
682, 687 (2d Cir. 1996) (“We therefore conclude that Tippins
suffered prejudice, by presumption or otherwise, if his counsel

18

Appeal: 14-7245

Doc: 62

Filed: 03/11/2016

Pg: 19 of 31

was repeatedly unconscious at trial for periods of time in which
defendant’s interests were at stake.”).
We agree with other circuits and hold that a defendant’s
Sixth

Amendment

right

to

counsel

is

violated

when

that

defendant’s counsel is asleep during a substantial portion of
the defendant’s trial. 3
us

to

presume

constructively

In such circumstances, Cronic requires

prejudice
denied

because

counsel.

the

For

defendant

good

reason

counsel is tantamount to no counsel at all.”

–

has

been

“sleeping

United States v.

DiTommaso, 817 F.2d 201, 216 (2d Cir. 1987).
A.
While
amenable
. . .

“episodes

to

analysis

‘[p]rejudice

of

inattention

under
is

the

or

slumber

Strickland

inherent’

at

are

perfectly

prejudice

some

test[,]

point,

‘because

unconscious or sleeping counsel is equivalent to no counsel at
all.’”
834).

Tippins, 77 F.3d at 686 (quoting Javor, 724 F.2d at
It

should

go

without

saying

that

“[e]ffectiveness

of

counsel depends in part on the ability to confer with the client
during trial on a continuous basis, and the attorney must be
‘present

and

attentive’

in

order

to

make

adequate

cross-

examination – ‘a matter of constitutional importance’ by virtue
3

Our holding today does not preclude a claim in which
counsel is asleep during a critical portion of the defendant’s
trial.
See Tippins, 77 F.3d at 687.
Ragin, however, has not
pled facts that would implicate such a rule.

19

Appeal: 14-7245

Doc: 62

Filed: 03/11/2016

of the Sixth Amendment.”

Pg: 20 of 31

Id. (quoting Javor, 724 F.2d at 834).

Further, “if counsel sleeps, the ordinary analytical tools for
identifying

prejudice

opportunities

may

are

not

unavailable.

be

visible

The

in

errors

the

and

record,

and

lost
the

reviewing court applying the traditional Strickland analysis may
be forced to engage in ‘unguided speculation.’”

Id. (quoting

Javor, 724 F.2d at 834); see also Javor, 724 F.2d at 834-35
(“[A]n

inquiry

‘unguided

into

the

speculation’

intelligent,

even

question
and

handed

of

‘would

prejudice
not

application’

be

would

require

susceptible

because

an

to

attorney’s

absence prejudices a defendant more by what was not done than by
what was done.”).

In other words, when counsel is absent –

physically or due to sleep - “the evil lies in what the attorney
does not do, and is either not readily apparent on the record,
or occurs at a time when no record is made.”

Javor, 724 F.2d at

834.
Moreover,

the

question

of

prejudice

under

Strickland

ordinarily involves consideration of the range of strategies and
tactics available to a lawyer.

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689-90.

“[T]he buried assumption in our Strickland cases is that counsel
is present and conscious to exercise judgment, calculation and
instinct, for better or worse.”

20

Tippins, 77 F.3d at 687.

Of

Appeal: 14-7245

Doc: 62

Filed: 03/11/2016

Pg: 21 of 31

course, we cannot make such an assumption when counsel is asleep
during a substantial portion of the defendant’s trial. 4
B.
We do not understand Ragin’s claim of prejudice to be that
his lawyer failed to take any particular initiative at trial
that resulted in prejudice, as the government argues; rather,
Ragin claims that during a substantial portion of the trial, he
had

no

counsel

to

determine

what

options

were

available.

Indeed, “there is a great difference between having a bad lawyer
and having no lawyer:

if the lawyering is merely ineffective,

then

grant

the

decision

to

relief

turns

on

the

degree

of

incompetence and prejudice to the defendant; if the defendant
had no lawyer, prejudice is legally presumed in every case, and
the defendant is entitled to relief in every case.”
4

United

We recognize that there are “real dangers in presuming
prejudice merely from a lack of alertness.” Tippins, 77 F.3d at
686, 688 (noting that “[l]awyers may sometimes affect a drowsy
or bored look to downplay an adversary’s presentation of
evidence” and expressing concern that a per se rule may provide
“unscrupulous attorneys” a “tactical device” that could be
“sprung at some later strategic phase . . . if events developed
very badly for a defendant”); Prada-Cordero v. United States, 95
F. Supp. 2d 76, 81-82 (D.P.R. 2000) (“[A] court should be
cognizant that attorneys may use the appearance of sleep as a
strategic tool to downplay the importance of an adversary’s
presentation”; “[m]oreover, a rule that required a finding of
prejudice whenever an attorney slept during a trial would
provide unscrupulous practitioners with a safety valve to annul
trials that they feel they are at risk of losing.” (citing
Tippins, 77 F.3d at 688)). These “dangers” are not, however, at
issue in this case as there is no suggestion in the record that
Mackey used the appearance of sleep as part of a strategy.

21

Appeal: 14-7245

Doc: 62

Filed: 03/11/2016

Pg: 22 of 31

States v. Taylor, 933 F.2d 307, 312 (5th Cir. 1991).

When an

attorney is dozing or asleep, a “client cannot consult with his
or her attorney or receive informed guidance from him or her
during the course of the trial.”
We

therefore

conclude

Javor, 724 F.2d at 834.

that

Ragin

would

suffer

Cronic

prejudice if his counsel was asleep during a substantial portion
of the trial.

Such circumstances implicate a fundamental value

that Strickland instructs us to keep in mind:

“In every case

the court should be concerned with whether, despite the strong
presumption
proceeding

of

reliability,

is

unreliable

the

result

because

of

of

a

the

particular

breakdown

in

the

adversarial process that our system counts on to produce just
results.”
the

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696 (emphasis added).

dispositive

circumstances

question

surrounding

in

this

Mackey’s

case

is

Thus,

whether

representation

of

the
Ragin

justify a presumption of prejudice under Cronic, the issue to
which we now turn.

IV.
Because we are “left with the definite and firm conviction
that

a

mistake

has

been

committed”

in

the

district

court’s

findings of fact and credibility determinations, we reverse the
district court’s determination that Mackey was not asleep for a

22

Appeal: 14-7245

Doc: 62

Filed: 03/11/2016

Pg: 23 of 31

substantial portion of the trial.

See Dugger, 485 F.3d at 239

(providing clear error standard).
A.
Besides Mackey, who, tellingly, could not recall whether he
was asleep at trial, every witness who testified stated that
Mackey was asleep, appeared to be asleep, or was “nodding off”
at

some

point.

Two

witness,

testified

that

possibly

two

witnesses,
Mackey

occasions.

including

was

This

asleep

is

the
or

government’s

nodding

consistent

with

off

on

Ragin’s

affidavit, which the district court did not discredit.
Vernon

testified

that

she

noticed

Mackey

sleeping

“[f]requently . . . almost every day . . . morning and evening”
for

“30

minutes

at

least”

at

a

time.

J.A.

153-55.

She

specifically recalled that “[e]vidence was being presented and
. . . witnesses were being questioned” when Mackey was asleep. 5
J.A. 154.

Further, Vernon testified that other jurors noticed

Mackey sleeping and commented on it in the jury room.

Moreover,

on cross-examination, the government asked whether, during jury
deliberations, Vernon “h[e]ld [her] observation of Mr. Mackey
resting

his

head

against

. . .

5

the

defendant.”

J.A.

157.

Even assuming, arguendo, that Mackey only slept during the
portion of trial in which no witness testimony directly
implicated Ragin, “[t]he adversary process becomes unreliable
when no attorney is present to keep the taint of conspiracy from
spreading to the client.”
United States v. Russell, 205 F.3d
768, 772 (5th Cir. 2000).

23

Appeal: 14-7245

Doc: 62

Filed: 03/11/2016

Pg: 24 of 31

Vernon stated, “We discussed it.

Yes.”

Id.

As it stands, it

appears not only that the jurors discussed their observations of
Mackey “resting his head” during jury deliberations but also,
even

more

troubling,

that

the

jurors

may

have

held

Mackey’s

conduct against Ragin in reaching their verdict. 6
Remarkably, the district court dismissed Vernon’s testimony
because

she

“repeatedly

referred

to

Ragin

by

his

first

name

during her testimony, [and] may be remorseful for the severity
of the sentence imposed.” 7

Ragin, 2014 WL 4105898, at *7.

There

is, however, nothing in the record to suggest that Vernon had
knowledge of the sentence the district court imposed, that she
felt remorseful, or that she had improper communications or any
interactions with Ragin. 8

This was clear error.

6

Surprisingly, the government never clarified whether
Vernon actually did hold Mackey’s conduct against Ragin in
reaching her verdict.
Whether this evidence would support a
finding of actual prejudice under Strickland is an issue we need
not reach because prejudice in this case is presumed under
Cronic.
7

The district court also stated that Vernon should have
brought Mackey’s sleeping to the district court’s attention.
While it would have been helpful had Vernon, or any of the
jurors, alerted the district court to Mackey’s conduct, we
cannot assume that any juror knew or should have known that they
could bring this information to the court’s attention. Further,
we are unaware of any duty that the juror had to bring the
conduct to the district court’s attention.
8

It is true that Vernon referred to Ragin by his first name
– Nicholas – while she referred to Mackey by his first and last
names, as did Adolf. J.A. 130, 132. But it is also true that

24

Appeal: 14-7245

Doc: 62

Filed: 03/11/2016

Pg: 25 of 31

Indeed, Vernon’s testimony is not inconsistent with all the
other witnesses for the following reasons.

First, the district

court utterly failed to consider the likely possibility that
each

witness

occasions.

saw

Mackey

asleep

or

nodding

off

on

different

Had the court done so, it would have reached the

conclusion that Mackey could have been asleep on at least six or
seven different occasions. 9

This is consistent with Vernon’s

testimony – Mackey appeared to be asleep “[f]requently . . .
almost every day . . . morning and evening.”

J.A. 153-54.

Second, based on the courtroom setup, Mackey was sitting
“directly across from [the jurors].”
“could

see

completely.”

[Mackey]
Id.

clearly,
Every

and

other

J.A. 153.

[they]
witness

were
at

The jurors
facing

the

[him]

evidentiary

hearing stated that Mackey was not directly in their line of
sight and that their attention was directed at the witness box,
which was located at the opposite side of the courtroom from
where Mackey sat.

Cf. Tippins, 77 F.3d at 688 (“[Government

counsel] – who presumably would be looking elsewhere most of the
time - testified that he too saw [defendant’s lawyer asleep].”).
during trial, the witnesses referred to Ragin by his first name.
There is scant reason in these circumstances to discredit
Vernon’s testimony.
9

Adolf witnessed Mackey asleep on one occasion. Culler and
Ragin each witnessed Mackey asleep on at least two occasions.
And, Tadeo witnessed Mackey “nodding off” on one or two
occasions.

25

Appeal: 14-7245

Doc: 62

Filed: 03/11/2016

Pg: 26 of 31

Common sense dictates that a juror who is seated directly across
from counsel can observe counsel asleep more often during a twoweek trial than a person who does not have a direct line of
sight to counsel and whose attention is admittedly directed to
the opposite side of the courtroom from where counsel sat.

Not

only would the juror see counsel asleep more frequently based on
this courtroom setup but the juror would also be in the best
position to accurately assess how long counsel was asleep during
each incident.
Finally,
inconsistent
government

there
with,

in

discredits,

testified

that

witnesses

only

proffered

Mackey

nodded

to

that

testimony.

is
The

In fact

government’s

any

Vernon’s

record

testimony, although it had ample opportunity to do so.

Mackey,

call

the

Vernon’s

the

not

or

nothing

dispute

Tadeo,

did

is

witness
off

on

other
one

or

than
two

occasions.
Astonishingly,
allegation

that

he

Mackey
was

himself

sleeping

did

during

not
trial;

dispute
instead,

the
he

referred the district court to the trial transcript based on his
belief that the court would have admonished him on the record.
Perhaps;

perhaps

not.

Perhaps

like

other

witnesses

in

this

case, the district court was looking elsewhere most of the time
– for example, at the witness and juror box.

26

Appeal: 14-7245

Doc: 62

Filed: 03/11/2016

Pg: 27 of 31

Vernon’s testimony is unrebutted and consistent with the
testimony of every witness in this case:

Mackey slept “almost

every day” – “morning and evening” – of the trial.
we

are

reluctant

credibility

overturn

determinations;

unbiased

witness

Mackey’s

conduct

discredited

to

-

who

was

a

district

but,
in

when

the

the

best

–

goes

unrebutted,

without

good

reason,

court’s

there

is

weight

testimony

position

and

Generally,

that

to

of

and
an

observe

testimony

justification

is
for

finding clear error. 10
Based on this record, we find it impossible not to conclude
that Mackey slept, and was therefore not functioning as a lawyer
during

a

substantial

portion

of

the

counsel equates to no counsel at all.”

trial. 11

“Unconscious

Burdine, 262 F.3d at

10

Because we conclude that the district court committed
clear error in discrediting the testimony of a disinterested
witness in the best position to observe Mackey throughout the
trial, we need not consider the district court’s credibility
finding concerning Ragin’s testimony that Mackey slept on ten to
twenty occasions during his trial.
11

While we conclude that the manner in which Mackey slept
in the instant case was substantial, we decline to define this
term for all cases.
Whether a lawyer slept for a substantial
portion of the trial should be determined on a case-by-case
basis, considering, but not limited to, the length of time
counsel slept, the proportion of the trial missed, and the
significance of the portion counsel slept through. At the same
time, however, while we decline to dictate precise parameters
for what must necessarily be a case-by-case assessment, we
caution district courts that the scope of our holding today
should not be limited to only the most egregious instances of
attorney slumber.

27

Appeal: 14-7245

349.

Doc: 62

Filed: 03/11/2016

Pg: 28 of 31

Unconscious counsel cannot “analyze, object, listen or in

any way exercise judgment on behalf of a client.”

Id.

Because

we have no basis to conclude that an attorney who sleeps through
a substantial portion of the trial has exercised judgment on his
client’s behalf, “we have insufficient basis for trusting the
fairness of that trial and consequently must presume prejudice.”
Id.

Therefore, the fact that Mackey was sleeping during Ragin’s

trial amounted to constructive denial of counsel for substantial
periods of that trial.
B.
The government contends that the facts of this case “stand
in stark contrast to the ‘egregious’ facts presented in cases
where

courts

have

presumed

prejudice.”

(citing Burdine, 262 F.3d at 349).

Gov.’s

Opp.

Br.

17

We disagree, as the facts of

this case are equally – if not more – egregious than the facts
presented in cases where other circuits have presumed prejudice.
In Javor, for example, the magistrate judge noted that the
trial judge saw that counsel was asleep but did not “call a
recess because the attorney would only doze off momentarily and
then wake up.”

724 F.2d at 836 (Anderson, J., dissenting).

The

magistrate judge also found that “all of the ‘dozing’ occurred
during times when the court proceedings did not concern issues
which

applied

to

defendant

defendants in Javor.

Id.

Javor,”

as

there

were

multiple

Based on this record, the Ninth

28

Appeal: 14-7245

Doc: 62

Circuit

Filed: 03/11/2016

nevertheless

held

Pg: 29 of 31

that

counsel

was

asleep

during

a

substantial portion of the two-week trial.
In Burdine, “four neutral witnesses” – three jurors and the
deputy clerk – testified that counsel “repeatedly dozed or slept
as

the

State

supporting

questioned

its

case

witnesses

against

and

evidence

262

Burdine.”

presented

at

F.3d

339.

Specifically, one juror recalled seeing counsel “doze or nod off
between

two

questioned

and

five

times

witnesses.”

while

Id.

the

Another

prosecuting
juror

attorney

testified

that

counsel was asleep “as many as ten times during the trial, at
one point for ‘a good probably at least 10 minutes’ as the
prosecution
recalled
trial.

questioned

“lots
Id.

of

a

witness.”

incidents”

of

Id.

counsel

The

deputy

sleeping

clerk

during

the

There were, however, three witnesses, including

another juror, who testified that they had not noticed counsel
asleep during the trial.
Circuit

held

that

counsel

through

the

not

Id.

Based on this record, the Fifth

“repeated

unconsciousness

insubstantial

portions

of

of

Burdine’s

the

critical

guilt-innocence phase of Burdine’s capital murder trial warrants
a presumption of prejudice.”

Id. at 349.

Here, as discussed extensively above, every witness stated
that they observed Mackey asleep on at least one occasion, with
multiple witnesses testifying that Mackey was asleep on multiple
occasions.

Vernon, who had a direct view of Mackey, testified

29

Appeal: 14-7245

Doc: 62

Filed: 03/11/2016

Pg: 30 of 31

that Mackey appeared to be asleep “[f]requently . . . almost
every day . . . morning and evening” for “30 minutes at least”
at a time during the two-week trial.
commented

on

Mackey

deliberations

(and

being

may

The jurors discussed and

asleep,

have

held

including

this

fact

during

against

jury

Ragin

in

reaching their verdict).

None of this evidence is in dispute.

There

that

were

no

witnesses

asleep – not even Mackey.

testified

that

Mackey

was

not

These facts are extraordinary and

egregious.
As the government concedes, “[t]here is little doubt that
trial

counsel

sleeping.”

cannot

Gov.’s

provide

Opp.

Br.

effective

17.

assistance

Indeed.

And,

as

while
Cronic

recognized, there are some egregious circumstances that “are so
likely

to

prejudice

the

accused

that

the

cost

of

their effect in a particular case is unjustified.”
658.

litigating
466 U.S. at

This case presents such circumstances.

V.
“While

a

criminal

trial

is

not

a

game

in

which

the

participants are expected to enter the ring with a near match in
skills,

neither

gladiators.”

is

it

a

sacrifice

of

unarmed

prisoners

to

Id. at 657 (quoting United States ex rel. Williams

v. Twomey, 510 F.2d 634, 640 (7th Cir. 1975)).

Ragin was thrown

unarmed into the arena to face the gladiators without benefit of

30

Appeal: 14-7245

Doc: 62

Filed: 03/11/2016

Pg: 31 of 31

the assistance of counsel to which he had an absolute right.
a

result,

Ragin’s

trial

was

not

a

confrontation

As

between

adversaries in which any reasonable person can have confidence.
Such an unfair battle – one in which one side is represented and
the other is not - is a clear and direct violation of the Sixth
Amendment.

Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of conviction

and sentence, direct entry of judgment in favor of Ragin on his
§ 2255

motion,

and

remand

for

further

proceedings

consistent

with this opinion.
VACATED AND REMANDED

31