Clark v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Maryland held that trial counsel’s failure to object to a blanket order barring communication between Clark and counsel during an overnight trial recess constituted an actual denial of the assistance of counsel. Because the order covered a lengthy recess and all case-related communications, prejudice was presumed under the Sixth Amendment and, independently, under Articles 21 and 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights; Clark was not required to prove that he actually wanted to consult counsel. The Court reversed the intermediate appellate court and upheld the postconviction court’s order granting a new trial.