## Facts

- Raleigh Johns, a Virginia state prisoner, was convicted in 1942 of first-degree murder for killing fellow inmate Melvin Childress and received a life sentence.
- The day after the killing, Johns signed a statement admitting he stabbed Childress and describing circumstances that could support a lesser-offense or mitigating theory.
- The state trial court appointed an experienced attorney to represent Johns; no verbatim trial transcript exists because no court reporter was present.
- Johns did not testify, and the prosecution introduced his signed statement.
- Defense counsel did not request or submit jury instructions, including any instruction on manslaughter, and made no closing argument.
- The jury was instructed only on first- and second-degree murder, convicted Johns of first-degree murder, and imposed a life sentence.
- In later proceedings, counsel stated Johns told him the signed statement was false; counsel believed he could not ethically argue a defense or seek lesser instructions based on that statement.

## Issues

1. Whether Johns was denied due process under the Fourteenth Amendment because appointed counsel, based on personal conscience and beliefs about guilt and truthfulness, failed to provide effective advocacy by omitting argument and lesser-offense instructions.
2. Whether counsel’s omissions, driven by moral scruples rather than client-serving strategy, rendered the 1942 trial fundamentally unfair so as to justify federal habeas relief.

## Decision

- The district court granted federal habeas corpus relief.
- The court held Johns did not receive a fair trial because counsel’s personal scruples interfered with the performance of professional duties.
- The court found counsel’s failure to request appropriate instructions and failure to argue to the jury amounted to a denial of effective assistance of counsel, violating the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The conviction could not stand as constitutionally valid; the ruling required the state to retry Johns or release him.

## Legal Principles

- Due process requires a fundamentally fair criminal trial, which includes more than the nominal presence of counsel.
- The constitutional right to counsel includes the right to loyal, conscientious, effective representation; personal beliefs about guilt cannot displace counsel’s duty to provide lawful advocacy supported by the record.
- Habeas relief is not warranted for ordinary errors, lack of polish, or debatable strategy, but is warranted where counsel effectively abandons advocacy at critical stages (such as jury instructions and summation) for reasons unrelated to the client’s interests.
- When evidence could support lesser-offense theories, counsel’s refusal to request corresponding instructions or argue those theories, because of moral scruples, can constitute constitutionally ineffective assistance and deny due process.

## Conclusion

The court granted habeas relief because appointed counsel’s conscience-driven refusal to request lesser-offense instructions and to argue for the defense deprived Johns of effective assistance of counsel and a fair trial under the Fourteenth Amendment.


Johns v. Smyth, 176 F. Supp. 949 (E.D. Va. 1959)