Post by gellibee on Jun 18, 2006 3:28:34 GMT -5
Inadequate Representation
"I have yet to see a death case among the dozens coming to the Supreme Court on eve-of-execution stay applications in which the defendant was well represented at trial?People who are well represented at trial do not get the death penalty."
- Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, April 9, 2001
Capital cases are among the most emotionally and financially draining cases imaginable. Lawyers must be extremely knowledgeable and diligent to navigate the complex maze of federal and state procedures governing capital cases. These cases demand hundreds of hours of preparation and extensive resources. Since most defendants cannot afford a lawyer, they must rely on the state to provide them with representation. And few states provide adequate funds to compensate lawyers for their work or to investigate cases properly. As a result, capital defendants are frequently represented by inexperienced, often over-worked, and in many cases incompetent, lawyers.
In June 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the death sentence of Kevin Wiggins and ordered a new sentencing hearing because his lawyers' assistance fell well below the standard of competent legal representation. Wiggins, a black man from Maryland, had been convicted and sentenced to death for the 1998 murder of Florence Lacs; he was arrested because he was in possession of Lacs' car and credit cards. Wiggins' counsel failed to conduct a thorough investigation into Wiggins' history of severe emotional, physical, and sexual abuse as a young child. Despite the fact that such an analysis is routine in capital cases, his counsel introduced no mitigating evidence and failed to even prepare a social history or hire an expert to do so. This omission is critical because juries often reject death and impose a life sentence when such evidence is presented.
Harsh reports about the abysmal quality of state-appointed legal representation for people accused of murder are common. A recent report on indigent defense by the Texas Defender Service found that judges often appointed defense attorneys not based on their competence or experience, but based on their reputation for rapidly moving cases through the system. The study concluded that death row prisoners "face a one-in-three chance of being executed without having the case properly investigated by a competent attorney or without having any claims of innocence or unfairness heard."
A review of attorney conduct in Tennessee capital cases revealed that in one-forth of capital cases, attorneys offered no mitigating evidence during trial. In Philadelphia, 60 percent of all capital cases went without proper investigation or experienced attorneys. Professor James Liebman of Columbia University examined every capital sentence from 1973 to 1995 and found that 68 percent of the cases had been reversed. Inadequate representation was one of the primary reasons for the high reversal rate.
In addition to inadequate funding, most states do not have meaningful competency standards. In 2003, the American Bar Association (ABA) published its revised Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases that include: requiring the attorneys to have abilities, expertise, and skills in representing clients in capital cases; providing two attorneys, an investigator, and a mitigation specialist in every case; and providing full-funding to the defense. According to the ABA, no state has yet established standards that meet its minimum requirements. And writing for the majority in Wiggins, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor mentioned that Wiggins' defense counsel fell short of the standards for capital defense set by the ABA.
There is bi-partisan federal legislation that would go along way toward addressing this issue. "The Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003" (S. 1700; H.R. 3214) includes provisions requiring states to examine their indigent defense systems and where appropriate improve standards of representation. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) introduced the "National Death Penalty Moratorium Act of 2003," (S. 132) which would halt federal executions, and study whether or not the death penalty is being applied fairly both on the federal level and in the states. The study would examine the adequacy of legal representation.
There is little question that in capital cases, a competent attorney can mean the difference between life and death. Executing people because of who their attorney was, instead of what their crime was, only adds to the arbitrary and discriminatory nature of the death penalty.
www.aclu.org/capital/unequal/10390pub20031008.html
"I have yet to see a death case among the dozens coming to the Supreme Court on eve-of-execution stay applications in which the defendant was well represented at trial?People who are well represented at trial do not get the death penalty."
- Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, April 9, 2001
Capital cases are among the most emotionally and financially draining cases imaginable. Lawyers must be extremely knowledgeable and diligent to navigate the complex maze of federal and state procedures governing capital cases. These cases demand hundreds of hours of preparation and extensive resources. Since most defendants cannot afford a lawyer, they must rely on the state to provide them with representation. And few states provide adequate funds to compensate lawyers for their work or to investigate cases properly. As a result, capital defendants are frequently represented by inexperienced, often over-worked, and in many cases incompetent, lawyers.
In June 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the death sentence of Kevin Wiggins and ordered a new sentencing hearing because his lawyers' assistance fell well below the standard of competent legal representation. Wiggins, a black man from Maryland, had been convicted and sentenced to death for the 1998 murder of Florence Lacs; he was arrested because he was in possession of Lacs' car and credit cards. Wiggins' counsel failed to conduct a thorough investigation into Wiggins' history of severe emotional, physical, and sexual abuse as a young child. Despite the fact that such an analysis is routine in capital cases, his counsel introduced no mitigating evidence and failed to even prepare a social history or hire an expert to do so. This omission is critical because juries often reject death and impose a life sentence when such evidence is presented.
Harsh reports about the abysmal quality of state-appointed legal representation for people accused of murder are common. A recent report on indigent defense by the Texas Defender Service found that judges often appointed defense attorneys not based on their competence or experience, but based on their reputation for rapidly moving cases through the system. The study concluded that death row prisoners "face a one-in-three chance of being executed without having the case properly investigated by a competent attorney or without having any claims of innocence or unfairness heard."
A review of attorney conduct in Tennessee capital cases revealed that in one-forth of capital cases, attorneys offered no mitigating evidence during trial. In Philadelphia, 60 percent of all capital cases went without proper investigation or experienced attorneys. Professor James Liebman of Columbia University examined every capital sentence from 1973 to 1995 and found that 68 percent of the cases had been reversed. Inadequate representation was one of the primary reasons for the high reversal rate.
In addition to inadequate funding, most states do not have meaningful competency standards. In 2003, the American Bar Association (ABA) published its revised Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases that include: requiring the attorneys to have abilities, expertise, and skills in representing clients in capital cases; providing two attorneys, an investigator, and a mitigation specialist in every case; and providing full-funding to the defense. According to the ABA, no state has yet established standards that meet its minimum requirements. And writing for the majority in Wiggins, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor mentioned that Wiggins' defense counsel fell short of the standards for capital defense set by the ABA.
There is bi-partisan federal legislation that would go along way toward addressing this issue. "The Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003" (S. 1700; H.R. 3214) includes provisions requiring states to examine their indigent defense systems and where appropriate improve standards of representation. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) introduced the "National Death Penalty Moratorium Act of 2003," (S. 132) which would halt federal executions, and study whether or not the death penalty is being applied fairly both on the federal level and in the states. The study would examine the adequacy of legal representation.
There is little question that in capital cases, a competent attorney can mean the difference between life and death. Executing people because of who their attorney was, instead of what their crime was, only adds to the arbitrary and discriminatory nature of the death penalty.
www.aclu.org/capital/unequal/10390pub20031008.html
?