WNmz PRISONERS NEWS PUBLISHED BY THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD (N„Y<,CHAPTER) AND THE PRISON JUSTICE COMMITTEE PEG/AL Mat?dv 1972 - VoJ .2 Ho. I WRITING ON THE WALLS Since we've started putting out Midnight Special, we've received many encouraging letters. Starting with this issue, we'll be reprinting letters, articles, poems, drawings, etc. in whole or in part, that reflect your reactions to what's been going down. It also should be noted that we're not including names for obvious reasons. Greenhaven I have been in Concentration Camps in my mother country Puerto Rico as well as Viet-nam. This fascist imperialist country oppresses, exploits and suppresses that right of our National Independence. I have seen how this Fascist Racist government forces our women, children and men into concentration camps and how they apply the mass assassination of our people. I have seen the same oppression and exploitation here in North America (note: George Jackson, Attica Brothers and Kent State University, etc.) History shows us that man is a social animal and exists and develops in a system of social relationships, its obligations, its benefits, its reciprocity and interest, and its strong feeling of mutual interdependence. But this dog-eat-dog rat race has made out of this social being an anti-social being. This is why we refuse to integrate or incorporate in this fascist racist capitalist system. See—Malcolm X, Black Panther, Weathermen, Young Lords or the Viet-nam people. We will not have People s Liberation by electing candidates in elections, such as Chisolm, Humphrey, or anybody that incorporates in the same system that oppresses and exploits us. All Power to the People's Struggle. k. WOMEN'S B A , L FUND The Women's Bail Fund in New York City: • bails women out of the New York City women's prison. In the last year we have bailed out 130 women with money we raise from contributions. • goes to court with women when their cases come up, finds lawyers for or talks to the Legal Aid lawyers who represent the women who have been bailed out. We never tell a woman to go to court so that we will get our money back. She knows what's best for her. If she decides to show, we're there to support her. • helps women inside with their cases, gets bail reduction hearings for women. • plans actions, writes articles and talks to groups about the conditions in the prisons and our demand that all prisoners be released immediately. • corresponds with women inside. • investigates cases of brutality which we hear about from women inside. • supports all demands and struggles of prisoners. We take these actions as our part in the struggle to free all prisoners. We know that the prisons and the courts are used as weapons against poor and Third World people. The only "crime" committed by some of the defendants is the fact that they are black or poor. We know that bails which would not seem high to a judge are often sufficient to lock people up away from their families and friends, to keep them from getting their cases together, to force them to lose their jobs or to have their children taken away from them. We know that a past record means automatic conviction and future arrests, that the definition of crime is made to protect property and power. What the people of this country need are more and better jobs, decent health care, decent housing, free child care, and respect-NOT prisons. Prisons are a way of penalizing the people who are the most oppressed for their own oppression and keeping them locked up so they will not demand a change. HISTORY We did our first bail-out of two women on December 20, 1970, the Tenth Anniversary of the National Liberation Front and held a big rally outside the old Women's House of Detention in Greenwich Village to show our solidarity with our sisters inside and with our sisters and brothers fighting in Vietnam. We held up a big sheet with our address on it so that the sisters inside could write to tell us their bails. Very soon we found that prison authorities were not allowing any letters to the Bail Fund or from the Bail Fund or its members to be delivered to the prison. Nonetheless we had communications with women inside and continued our work. We soon learned to stand across the street and shout up, "Who has a low bail?" Sisters would risk punishment inside to yell their names out to us. This direct communication was also stopped when the women were moved to Rikers Island. Over 100 people rallied from 5:30 a.m. the day the women were moved. We had to show our sisters we would not forget them once they were at Rikers. Now they are two transit fares and over an hour's ride from most parts of the city But we still communicate with individuals in the prison. Letters have recently been getting through. We know lawyers and others who call us when they come across a woman in prison with a low bail. The move has not stopped the work of the Bail Fund, just as it has not stopped the brutal treatment of prisons, just as it has not stopped the desire of the sisters inside to get out. On January 13, 1972, four months after the heroic uprising at Attica, members of the Women's Bail Fund along with other groups involved in the prison struggle, demonstrated by the bridge to Rikers Island to show our solidarity with all prisoners. We were greeted by cops from four precincts as well as Finnigan from the Red Squad. They had barricades across the street and were redirecting traffic. ( c o n t . p . 3 ) (coni rrom p . 2 ) Nevertheless, busloads of imprisoned brothers and sisters returning from court and buses of relatives going to visit the jails, saw us, heard us and yelled back to us. WHO DO WE BAIL OUT? Women with relatively low bails. As we get names of women we check them out and bail them out. If, at any time we do not have enough money to bail out all the women whose names we have, we bail out first: pregnant women, sick women, women with families which need taking care of, women who have been in for a long time. The prisoners themselves should be making the decisions of who gets bailed out, but until they can do this and communicate it to us, these are our guidelines. When we bail out a woman, she is under no obligation to us at all. She is welcome to join the Bail Fund or work with us in any way that she wants to. So is any woman who has been in prison anywhere. Box 637, Cooper Station, N.Y., N.Y. 10003. That's our address. Please write to us, sisters. Even if we cannot bail you out, we want to know what's happening inside. We don't want you isolated from us. POWER! c I C I c I j midnight medicine GONORRHEA . . . What is gonorrhea? Otherwise known as G.C. , clap", "strain" (or other manes), gonorrhea is the most common form of venereal disease. Venereal diseases are those transmitted by sexual contact. Other venereal diseases include syphilis and trichomonas. Gonorrhea is caused by a germ. How do you catch gonorrhea? The germ is passed from person to person by sexual contact. Since the germ is rapidly killed by air, it cannot be caught from a toilet seat What are common symptoms? For men: 1) yellow or white discharge ("drip") from the penis which appears from 2 to 8 days after exposure; and 2) burning, painful urination. For women: usually produces vaginal discharge, but this is often not painful. In fact, there may be NO symptoms. A woman may carry the germ, be unaware of it, and yet pass the germ to any person with whom she has sexual contact. What should the doctor do? For Men: take some discharge from the penis and spread it on a glass slide and examine it under a microscope to make a diagnosis. For women: a pelvic examination is necessary, so that a slide of vaginal discharge can be made and examined under a microscope. But a woman cannot be declared free of gonorrhea without a culture. A culture involves taking discharge during the pelvic examination, and trying to grow the gonorrhea germ in the laboratory. It may take three or four days before the laboratory is certain that there are no germs in the discharge. What treatment should be given? For men: 2.4 million units of procaine penicillin by injection (other drugs for those allergic to penicillin). For women: 4.8 million units of procaine penicillin by injection. Will treatment cure? Ordinarily, if the right kind and. dose of penicillin is given symptoms will disappear in both men and women within a few days and cure will be complete. However, some gonorrhea germs have become resistant to penicillin and require higher doses or other drugs. Women should always be checked with a second culture one week after treatment. What will happen if it is not treated (or inadequately treated)? Men: scars can form in the tube of the penis, blocking the flow of urine and semen. This can lead to kidney infections and sterility. William Craig is one of the Harlem 6 who recently completed his third trial on the same charges. This one, like the re-trial preceding it, resulted in a mistrial. He was tried along with Wallace Baker, Ronald Felder and Walter Thomas. Ronald Rice and Danial Hamm, who allegedly confessed and whose cases were severed from the others, are also appealing their conviction. All have spent the past 7 1/2 years in jail. They were originally busted in April 1964 and charged with the fatal stabbing of a woman and the wounding of her husband. In the midst of white hysteria about Blacks and fear of Black uprisings, the six were found guilty and sentenced to life. The appeals court overturned the verdict and ordered a new trial, which, like the more recent one, ended in a hung jury. At the end of this last trial the judge has finally set bail—$75,000—for the brothers. Here are two of William Craig's drawings which originally appeared in the Liberated Guardian. camnc m=.u ^ b6m9 these conc entration camps makes every one that has a mind Bmth^h X T hS W3S before coming here Brotherhood is an everyday thing here, because we didn t do so then we'd be subjected to many other things. The murdering of Attica the murder of our beloved brother George Jackson, and the slow death of our sister every day 6 tT ° UrSe ' VeS 566 and ^ every day in this man made hell. Yes, prison poweT mV W ° rk 3 kind 0f stren 9th and Now being very much aware of my past and culture, all I do will actually be out of my black life and culture. To make myself plainer I'll say this, I would feel nothing in doing a picture of Nixon or any others of the ruling class. I can only draw what I've been apart of all my life. Happiness and joy was not apart of black life to the poor and oppressed. Hard times and racism are the things that I can draw without thinking about it. Being now aware of my culture I know that we were the master architects and art was a culture itself?* />- I think of myself consciously as a black political prisoner, and as an artist second. Though they are related to a large degree, I must never omit the fact that being a political prisoner is the first and most important factor. In saying this I'm saying that every poor black and oppressed person born under the flag of red, white, and blue, is born a political prisoner. When the womb gave way to you and the doctor spanked you on the bottom of your feet, you became a prisoner economically and politically? 4 ( c e n t , from p . 8) Women: the germ can spread outside the vagina to the uterus (womb), tubes and ovaries. When this happens the patient feels very sick with fever, low "stomach pains", which are worse when walking. This can result in scarring of the pelvic organs and sterility. Also, chronic infection (like an internal abscess) can form, causing constant pain, which is very difficult to cure. Can gonorrhea spread? Yes it can spread to other organs of the body. Most commonly, it spreads to the rectum. This is particularly true in male homosexuals. On rare occasions, it may spread (through the blood stream) to other parts of the body, such as the joints (producing arthritis). Does one attack produce immunity? No, gonorrhea is not like measles. A person may be re-infected again if exposed to the germ. Should other tests be done? Yes, since syphillis can be present along with gonorrhea, a blood test should be performed at the time of the examination for gonorrhea, because treatment for this infection is different. ( c o n t e f r o m p 0 l l ) unencouraging response. This court rejects as incredible that claimed effort—half-hearted, listless and insufficient as it would have been—and finds that Blecher was not called, and that he could and should have been, but was not, prepared and summoned for the trial. The grim picture seems clear enough. From first to last—from the failure to confer adequately with petitioner, through the pattern of insufficient inquiry in the state courts blocking petitioner's efforts to obtain decent legal assistance, to the total failure to do any of th.e work appropriate for the defense in the circumstances of this case—petitioner's so-called representation at his trial was such as to "shock goodbye vince One of the demands that the Attica Brothers made is finally being heeded. Vincent R. Mancusi, the Warden at Attica, has announced his retirement. The Brothers have long called for his removal. According to his superior. Commissioner Oswald, "the enormous pressures" Mancusi has faced since the rebellion just became more than old Vince could handle. Rumor has it that part of those pressures were from Oswald himself, who was less than pleased vyith the Warden's inability to stifle the growing movement that resulted in the September rebellion. Commissioner Oswald has also been under a lot of pressure since the rebellion. There were public demonstrations when he appeared in New York City and he has been forced to work out of an underground Air-Raid shelter since the Weather Underground bombed his office in retaliation for his ordering the massacre at Attica. Who knows, maybe the pressures will become too much for him too. the conscience of the Court and make the proceediggs a farce and mockery of justice." United States v. Wight, 176 F.2d 376, 379 (2d Cir. 1949), cert, denied, 338 U.S. 950, 70 S.Ct. 478, 94 L.Ed. 586 (1950); and see cases collected in United States ex rel. Scott v. Mancusi, 429 F.2d 104, 109 (2d Cir. 1970). Respondent is correct in asserting that the state trial record, as it stands, is powerful proof of petitioner's guilt. But the infection now discovered strikes at the heart of that record. We cannot assume that if the case had been conscientiously prepared and faithfully presented the judge or jury would in the end have believed the account given by the complainant and the police. This court must, therefore, reject the suggestion that an infirmity so basic as the one now shown may be passed over as harmless error. Compare Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 53-54, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed. 2d 419 (1970). The petition is granted. Petitioner will be released from confinement unless within 30 days the State proceeds to re-try him. It is so ordered. WRITING ON THE WALLS Attica Why does a man have to write for a job and can't be released until he secures or finds some kind of employment? It seems to me they should have some kind of job placement program set up, because a man may be a better welder, mason, carpenter, etc. than he is a letter writer. * * * * * Someone should check out the kid's reformatories, like Elmira and Mapanoch and see how they put those "tomorrow's adults" through their cruel barbaric changes. They don't even work with the youngsters. All they do is mistreat, abuse, and degrade them for the least little thing and they call this kind of treatment Rehabilitation! ! Who are they trvina to kid? * * * * * Pick up on this Brothers, they have a committee (fact finding committee) here at Attica now called the McKay Committee, before it was the Goldman Committee. The Goldman Committee told of their findings and there wasn't anything done. It would stand to reason it will be the same with the McKay Committee. And dig this, I wonder do they know or realize the perilous position they put the brothers in, in here, by seeing them. You should see the looks these rollers give you when you go before the committee, and they have about eight rollers to one man and they act menacing and what have you. I hope this committee won't be like the last and will take into consideration how the brothers sacrifice for them' Salute to the New Year Will this year be a reflection of seventy-one Will pain and injustice cease Will this year be a reflection of seventy-one Will pain and injustice cease Will we still have to fight every step of the way Or will this be a year of peace Will there still be more Georges & Jonathans Or more Raw-way and Attica Revolutions Or will this year turn out to be A year of restitutions This is no longer one of your hideous games Where we die and you have the glory We have cut ourselves a piece of this pie And only time will tell the story Don't tell me I can't win, for I heard that before Don't tell me about death and the spook I realize you have the power to kill But we can stop you from existing too I heard it said again & again You get what your hand calls for And who better than you know what hands you dealt Or haven't you kept the score Forty-three at Attica Kent State claims four Jackson State another five And there remains countless more How long do you think you can continue Before this nation calls your bluff And how many more brothers will die Before they will say enough Leaders of America I set forth this, my New Years Resolution End right now this living hell Or suffer our retribution ATTICA Death Row AHlCA DEF&Gf COMMfTTEE tUh Both poets are Attica transferees to Greenhaven. by Attica "a system of gov't characterized oy dictatorship" Gov. Rockefeller and our other "elected -by-the-people government officials is an example of a democratic society"; but, on Black Monday—or should I say Blood-bath Monday, September 13, 1971, Gov. Rockefeller showed his true colors when he ordered the massacre at Attica without consulting the public or anyone else as to his decision to commit mass -murder on unarmed men—that is nothing but strong-arm tactics of a dictator; especially when he is trying to cover up for it 15 years on the row. Without knowing if ( stay or go. Waiting from day to day To see what my appeal would say. Bold letters on the wall. Spell out death cell. As if I couldn't tell. I look in my round mirror each day, Watching myself decay. One day the warden came. With a death warrant, on it my name. He said tonight at 12 o'clock, you must die. Through my little window, I told the world Good-by. The warden asked me what I wanted to eat He said New York State was willing to treat. He asked me did I have a wish, he said I can Have any dish. As I ate my last meal, I could feel the chill, of the bars of steel. The phone rings, the clock strikes ten, It's the warden again. Not tonight, I'll tell you when. The author is a brother doing a 15-year sentence in a New York prison. tcont. from centerfold) Attica owvZ -r ^ZSZ "SmT 8 ";" £ pS teVSa Oppressor, Repressor and Suppressor is anrt their motives for pursuing such a goal institutionsT^iJaL isTStr'inS influential and leait n > people ln certain sacrosanct. SU P° s, tions being towards wten IheTr.STh" " 'H 0 "" are leqitimatp and th,t + u our desires manifest a„» ™"" (f ^.V^-A'V Attica Well the very people that aided and abett the storm troopers in their vicious and inhum attack upon the inmates at Attica, are si around waiting for another opportunity display their brute force, and such people £ Guidance Counselers, Parole Officers, Civili orkers. The orgy of violence that w committed in the name of "The Furth Interest of New York State" should indica the great need for a Reform Program for tho who participated in this infamous historic event of violence. The oppressive acts at Attica that lead to tl just uprising of September 9-13, 1971 will I perpetrated more so now that the Feder Government has stepped in. They furnished tf New York State Penal System with the mone purchase more sophisticated, warlik equipment to subdue any further uprising. Such an act on behalf of the Feder, 0nly further inflame ^e Ne< injure Penal 0fficials ' Prions to kill an inadequate counsel Inadequate counsel at trial is one of the most common allegations made by prisoners, but unfortunately in the past it has not been a winning issue on appeal. In the following case, however. New York Federal Court Judge Frankel, held that the performance of the defendant's appointed lawyers was so bad that he was effectively denied his constitutional right to assistance of counsel. The decision sets forth the standards used by Judge Frankel to reach this conclusion and should be helpful to other people who are seeking to raise the same issue. This case was decided in Federal Court for the Southern District of New York because the defendant had already raised the same issue on appeal in New York state courts and had had his conviction affirmed. A Federal habeas corpus cannot be brought until the state courts have had a chance to hear the issues raised by the defendant and have denied relief, but Judge Frankel's opinion may encourage state courts to pay more attention than they have in the past to allegations of inadequacy of counsel so that it will be unnecessary for defendants to resort to Federal courts. This opinion can be cited in any court, state or federal, in any action a prisoner might bring. UNITED STATES OF America ex rel THOMAS, v. ZELKER 332 F. Supp. 595 (1971) Proceeding on state prisoner's petition for writ of habeas corpus. The District Court, Frankel, J., held that evidence at hearing established that prisoner's representation by legal aid coui •el, who did not properly confer with defendant prior to trial on charge of robbery and attempted rape and who did not effectively investigate list of witnesses given by defendant, was such as to make the trial a farce and mockery of justice requiring that defendant be set free unless state was able to proceed swiftly to retrial. Petition granted. Habeas Corpus 85.5(11) Evidence at hearing on state prisoner's petition for writ of habeas corpus established that prisoner's representation by legal aid counsel, who did not properly confer with defendant prior to trial on charge of robbery and attempted rape and who did not effectively investigate list of witnesses given by defendant, was such as to make the trial a farce and mockery of justice requiring that defendant be set free unless state was able to proceed swiftly to retrial. OPINION FRANKEL, District Judge. Convicted after a one-day bench trial on May 6, petitioner was sentenced on July 10, 1968, to concurrent terms of 6 to 18 years for robbery and 5 to 15 years for attempted rape. In his pro se petition for habeas corpus, he . .. [asserted] ... that his state representation by Legal Aid counsel had been below the modest minimum the Federal Constitution has been held to guarantee. [I] t is now evident that petitioner's "purported representation by counsel was such as to make the trial a farce and a mockery of justice * * United States v. Wight, 176 F.2d 376, 379 (2d Cir. 1949). Accordingly, his petition will be granted and he will be set free unless the State is able at this late date to proceed swiftly to a retrial. It appears that petitioner was brought before a judge in the Bronx on the morning of his arrest, that he denied any wrongdoing at that time, but that there was no hearing on probable cause then or thereafter. It also appears that he was assigned Legal Aid counsel and that an attorney named Richter, whom he never saw again, spoke to him hurriedly on that occasion. Petitioner was remanded then, and has been locked up ever since. From the morning of October 18 until December 15, no lawyer came to speak to petitioner about his plight. He was indicted on (cont. p„10) (contc from p 0 9) November 1, and was in court to enter his plea of not guilty on that day. Thereafter, he came to court several times to hear that his case was being postponed, evidently "represented" for these purposes by a series of Legal Aid attorneys, but never having an opportunity to consult with any of them. At some time in the month of November, a young Legal Aid lawyer named Robert Phillips was assigned by the agency to take charge of petitioner's case. On or just before November 30, Phillips obtained from petitioner's wife information for a bail-reduction application, which was "successful" in that the amount was lowered, but not enough to bring about petitioner's release. On December 15, 1967, petitioner had his first and only conference with Phillips. They talked for about a half-hour. In addition to protesting his innocence, petitioner gave Phillips a list of prospective witnesses and an account of how he thought each could help vindicate him. Because he was in the midst of another pressing case when he met petitioner and was moved from the Bronx Legal Aid office immediately after the trial of that other case ending in early January of 1968, Mr. Phillips never had an opportunity to pursue these leads or work further on any other aspect of petitioner's defense. Nobody told petitioner about the transfer of Phillips, and he was to hear nothing about the state of his representation until March 11, 1968. On February 26, 1968, having sat in jail for over four months with no clear word of what was happening to him, petitioner addressed to the court a pro se "Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus" alleging, inter alia, a failure to prosecute. This application (interpreted as "a motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds of a denial of the right to a speedy trial") was denied. On March 11, 1968, a Legal Aid attorney whose name we do not know handled a calendar call of petitioner's case and told him that a new staff attorney, William Harrison, had been assigned to defend him. According to the pertinent court record, petitioner's case was marked "ready" for trial at the time of that March 11 call, but neither Mr. Harrison nor anyone else even supposedly knowledgeable was present to handle the matter, and another of many adjournments was ordered. Still unaware of what, if anything, was being done for him petitioner drafted a paper to move for relief of the Legal Aid Society and assignment of different counsel. He wrote: "I have been locked up for five months and each time I come back to court I have another lawyer handling my case." At the cursory oral hearing of his motion on March 22, 1968, asked why he was dissatisfied, petitioner said: "It seems to me that they are not interested at all." A Legal Aid attorney was present and stated that Mr. Harrison had been .assigned to petitioner's case. Judge Brust then adjourned the motion. On March 25, 1968, Mr. Harrison appeared before Judge Brust with the petitioner and gave this account of the situation: "I have just been assigned to this case and would like an adjournment for two or three weeks to enable us to discuss the case at length with the defendant." Judge Brust entered an order dated March 25, 1968, denying petitioner's motion. On March 26, 1968, the petitioner was visited by Mr. Harrison, who was destined to conduct his defense at trial. Petitioner reviewed again the list of his alleged witnesses. Harrison made it clear that nothing had been done thus far to investigate or prepare the case for petitioner's defense. The interview lasted about 30 minutes. The two never talked together again until May 6, the day on which the petitioner was tried and convicted. In the intervening weeks, petitioner had no contact with anyone purporting to help with, or even keep him informed about, his case. Out of this total isolation he addressed to the court another handwritten motion, dated April 19, 1968, praying that Legal Aid be relieved and that an attorney from a panel of lawyers available for such assignments be substituted. Mr. Harrison knew of this motion. He neither responded nor reacted to it in any significant way. The motion came on to be heard May 1. Harrison was not there. Noting the prior denial by Judge Brust, Judge Bloustein denied the motion. After the Judge announced that ruling, the prosecutor volunteered: "This case was put in the trial part yesterday. Mr. Bill Harrison of the Legal Aid Society I know personally spoke to this defendant I would say close to an hour while—" The prosecutor was cut off at that point by the Judge's inquiry as to the readiness of the case for trial. This was probably just as well. If the prosecutor knew what he was talking about at all, he could only have been referring to the March 26 interview, some five weeks earlier, not any conversation between Harrison and petitioner "yesterday," as the context seemed to suggest. The best that can be said for what the representative of the People offered is that it was a gratuitous irrelevancy. Nobody then—and no state officer ever—undertook to appraise accurately the claim of petitioner that his supposed representation by counsel was a nightmarish burlesque. The case was set for May 6. Petitioner's trial counsel, Harrison, never met with any of the people petitioner proposed as witnesses. (cont 0 Poll) 10 (cont. from p.10) II. Upon the foregoing facts, assigned counsel here argues two interrelated points: (1) that the right to effective assistance of counsel was denied when petitioner's requests to have different counsel assigned were rejected by courts which neither had nor adequately sought an understanding of petitioner's plight while he awaited trial, and (2) that the representation petitioner ultimately had was, in any event, so woefully inadequate that his conviction cannot stand. The first branch of the argument supplies a reminder useful to all of us who sit in criminal trial courts. It is sufficient, however, to hold, upon all the facts now disclosed, that petitioner's trial mocked justice because of the total failure of his assigned lawyer to investigate and prepare the available materials for the defense. It is familiar law "that the right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel." Rastrom v. Robbins, 319 F.Supp. 1090, 1092 (D.Me. 1970) (Gignoux, J.), citing cases. Here, for whatever reasons of calendar pressure and understaffing, Legal Aid counsel left petitioner to the most brutal and horrifying kind of isolation, effectively walled off for months from any genuine assistance by a facade of "representation." Those supposedly aiding him failed even to see him. He did not know who his lawyer, as a live human being, was supposed to be. When his putative lawyer was replaced nobody told him about it. Twice, he supplied lists of witnesses. He was never told what, if anything, was being done about them. To put the matter more precisely, he was never told that nothing was being done to pursue the elementary and obvious things required for even a rudimentary defense. While the constitutional "test" is not routinely formulated in such terms, any lawyer or judge might usefully wonder how he would react to having legal "assistance" of the kind this petitioner received. Imagining such a thing, we would not want to omit the court appearances at which the petitioner sought different counsel, available from a state panel, and heard his request abruptly denied without sufficient inquiry into how the defense was being conducted. One of the more familiar causes of ineffective assistance is the appointment of counsel too late for adequate investigation, including, of course, the discovery and interviewing of possibly helpful witnesses. E.g., Twiford v. Peyton, 372 F.2d 670 (4th Cir. 1967). But timely appointment becomes a cruel joke when the defendant officially has a lawyer, but is actually being ignored. Even where the accused has had retained counsel, the failure to interview witnesses "whose testimony may or m ay not have been favorable" has been a central factor among those showing that the adequacy of the representation fell below the constitutional minimum. King v. Beto, 429 F.2d 221, 224 (5th Cir. 1970); see also United States ex rel. Williams v. Follette, 408 F.2d 658, 660 (2d Cir. 1969), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. McMann v. Richardson, 397 U S 759 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970); Pennington v. Beto, 437 F.2d 1281, 1285 n 2 (5th Cir. 1971). Of course "ft] he constitutional requirement of the effective assistance of counsel does not require that subsequent examination disclose that every conceivable avenue of evidence has been totally explored and every possible theory of defense has been pursued to judgment." United States ex rel. Boucher v. Reincke 341 F.2d 977, 981 (2d Cir. 1965). But a first-year law student would pursue leads concerning doubts about the innocence of an alleged rape victim. Petitioner's ostensible lawyer dropped the subject when an investigator reported that Victor Goldstein might be useful for this purpose, but not necessarily on everything efee. This court does not sit to second-guess the informed judgments of responsible attorneys. It would be an insufficient basis for relief if "hindsight" simply revealed "tactical or strategic errors over which conscientious attorneys might differ'." United States ex rel Maselli v. Reincke, 383 F.2d 129, 132 (2d Cir 1967); United States v. Silva, 418 F.2d 328 (2d Cir. 1969); United States v. Garguilo, 324 F.2d 795, 797 (2d Cir. 1963); United States ex rel. Fazio v. Fay, 348 F.2d 418, 420 (2d Cir! 1965). Respondent urges that the decision not to call Victor Goldstein was within the area of such irreversible judgments, and Mr. Harrison himself stated on the witness stand: "I was satisfied to the extent that had I called Mr. Goldstein that he would not have been a cooperative witness, would not have enhanced the defendant's case." This asserted judgment, on the facts before Harrison at the time, is indefensible and outside "the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases." McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 771, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970)! Mr. Harrison had taken no steps sufficient to be professionally "satisfied" of anything. He had simply neglected to do the rudiments of his job. Corre ctly described, his "decision" was no decision at all. The investigation was so perfunctory that nothing approaching an informed tactical choice could be made responsibly, and none was in fact made. Other witnesses, patently favorable and readily accessible even years later, were neglected altogether. As to one (Blecher), Legal Aid counsel stirred up a vague, unreliable memory of having called him during a recess in the one-day trial and having received an (cont. p.5) I a*i bci fa el <L j5\r' \ri5oietr. Pl«<*Sft Jto4*r YY\d4rt* Subscripfloo +D Mi^H44Ub J '^^CXCldX ' N 9 5<jX< — • f)am< of : Cv Midnight Seecial is pub lished with the aim of dis- eminating legal information which will be a direct help in securing and expanding prisoner rights, and to pro vide news or L'ne situation within the prisons from the prisoners point of view. We will publish articles, let—» ters, poems and art work by- prisoners. We have a small staff and little money, so aside from what we print in Special, f we arc iili able to he] p prisoners individualy with their legal problems. Z£p: Beginning with our next issue, Midnight Special will publish a Spanish Language edition. Like the English edition, it will be free to all prisoners. If you, or any prisoner you know, would like to receive Midnight Special in Spanish, please let us know by writing us at: Midnight Special c/o National Lawyers Guild 1 Hudson Street New York City, N.Y. 10013 Empazando con el proximo numero. Midnight Special publicara una edicion en espahol. Como la edicion en ingles, sera gratis para todos presos. Si Ud., cualquier preso que conoce, quisiera recibir Midnight Special, escri'benos en: Midnight Special c/o National Lawyers Guild 1 Hudson Street New York City, N.Y. 10013. Midnight Special c /o Nat c Lawyers Guild 1 Hudson St c New York, N O Y . 10013