People v. Thompson, 47 N.Y.2d 940 (1979)
r
When a defendant’s chosen defenses are ruled out as a matter of law due to overwhelming evidence of guilt, counsel’s strategic shift to appealing to the jury’s mercy does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
r
Summary
r
Thompson was convicted, and appealed arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. His primary defense strategies of agency and entrapment were rejected by the trial court due to overwhelming evidence of his guilt, including his own testimony admitting participation in the charged transaction. Consequently, his attorney delivered a brief summation appealing to the jury’s fair-mindedness. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the attorney’s actions, while unconventional, did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel given the difficult circumstances created by the failed defenses and overwhelming evidence.
r
Facts
r
Thompson participated in a transaction that led to criminal charges against him. At trial, Thompson admitted his participation in the transaction. Thompson’s defense strategy focused on agency and entrapment.
r
Procedural History
r
The trial court rejected Thompson’s agency and entrapment defenses. Thompson was convicted at trial. Thompson appealed, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The Appellate Division’s order was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision.
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether defense counsel’s decision to deliver a brief summation appealing to the jury’s mercy, after the trial court rejected the defenses of agency and entrapment due to overwhelming evidence of guilt, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
r
Holding
r
No, because faced with overwhelming proof of the defendant’s guilt and the failure of the chosen defenses, counsel’s strategic shift did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms.
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals reasoned that defense counsel faced a