Ineffective Trial Counsel Leads to Vacated Convictions in Norwood ABPO and Resisting Arrest Case

A Norwood man's trial counsel was deemed ineffective for failing to develop a defense and challenge the Commonwealth's case in a jury trial for assault and battery on a police officer (ABPO) and resisting arrest. As a result, the convictions must be vacated. The defendant's trial counsel failed to pursue a viable defense, leaving the defendant "denuded of a defense" to the ABPO charge. Additionally, counsel abandoned a potentially substantial defense that the defendant was not aware he was being arrested, an essential element of the resisting arrest charge. The defendant's trial counsel also failed to develop evidence of police bias and a potential alternative motive for the defendant's arrest.

Key Takeaways:

• The defendant's trial counsel was deemed ineffective for failing to develop a defense and challenge the Commonwealth's case.
• The counsel's performance was found to be "manifestly unreasonable" as he abandoned two viable defenses and pursued a defense that would not have led to an acquittal on either charge.
• The only evidence presented against the defendant was the testimony of two police officers, which was highly questionable given the circumstances.
• The officers' actions were dubious, and a defense theory focused on police bias was both substantial and available.
• The defendant's trial counsel failed to cross-examine the police witnesses for bias, which would have shown alternative motives for the defendant's arrest.
• The case highlights the importance of effective trial counsel in ensuring a fair trial and preventing wrongful convictions.

Statistics:

• 2 police officers testified against the defendant at trial.
• 1 question was asked by the defendant's trial counsel regarding whether the defendant's touching was unintentional.
• The defendant's trial counsel failed to develop the evasive answer received from the officers.
• 2 defenses were abandoned by the defendant's trial counsel: one focused on unintentional contact (ABPO) and another on lack of awareness (resisting arrest).

Sources:

• Commonwealth v. Noj (Lawyers Weekly No. 81-093-25)
• BridgeTower Media