Obviously, from the quoted statement, Justice Schneider felt that the Supreme Court had no way of knowing whether or not the objection was valid. The record failed to reveal why there was no alibi defense filed or why there were no defense witnesses called. The record being silent, one could hypothesize that appointed counsel talked to defendant's witnesses and felt that their testimony would be of no avail. Moreover, it is possible that after appointed counsel investigated the alibi defense he found it useless. It is here, to this third issue, that the force of the Supreme Court's decision must be guided. It is fundamental in reviewing procedures that the reviewing court is limited to what does appear in the record. It must logically follow that if a defendant objects to the inadequacy of counsel on the grounds that his counsel failed to do certain necessary things, and if the record does not reveal whether defendant's counsel did or did not do them-or whether he was justified in not doing them-then such a record is worthless. For under these circumstances the reviewing court cannot determine whether or not defendant's counsel was competent
George, Nicholas T.
"Duty of Trial Judge When Defendant Objects to Competency of His Counsel; State v. Deal,"
Akron Law Review: Vol. 3
, Article 5.
Available at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol3/iss1/5