High court hears argument on whether defense counsel’s refusal to seek plea was ineffective

The Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments over whether Gary Maso received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney allegedly never pursued plea negotiations, a failure defense counsel says may have left Maso facing life without parole.

The question before the court is whether a defense lawyer’s refusal to engage in plea discussions when a client requested them amounts to constitutionally deficient performance and, if so, whether the defendant can show the required prejudice when what would have happened in plea negotiations is necessarily uncertain.

Paul Rudolph, attorney for the appellant Gary Maso, told the court that the trial prosecutor testified in a later affidavit that Maso’s trial lawyer “never even approached him to discuss a plea” and that “that complete failure fell measurably below the level of an ordinary competent fallible attorney,” Rudolph said. Rudolph argued the prosecutor’s statement should be meaningful in assessing whether counsel abdicated a constitutional obligation and that the failure to pursue pleas cannot be treated merely as routine strategic decisionmaking when the client expressly asked counsel…