Recently I had a Federal judge reject my attempts to keep a client on death row from being executed. I was appointed to represent the defendant after he had lost his trial; lost his appeal in state court; and lost his attempt to convince the trial judge to find his case constitutionally flawed pursuant to a “writ of habeas corpus.” I was appointed, as Federal law provides, to represent him in relation to his final “appeals” to Federal court.
After I was appointed to represent him I asked the judge to let me have investigators and the funds to thoroughly review his case. Eventually the court agreed to let me do this. The evidence of guilt was overwhelming but the investigation revealed that the trial attorneys had failed to put on hardly any evidence in the phase of the trial in which the jury is supposed to hear all the evidence relevant to the question of whether he should live or die. The Supreme Court has made it increasingly clear over the years that it is unconstitutional in this day and age to execute someone unless the jury is provided a complete overview of the defendant’s life. The good, the bad and the ugly. Yet this clearly did not happen in this case. Easy answer right? Just retry the defendant on the question of whether he should be executed. Wrong!
The problem is I did not find out all of this information until it is too late. The law provides that if an allegation is made that the trial lawyers failed to do something it has to be raised in the first state writ of habeas corpus. If it wasn’t raised then it may never be considered again. Why wasn’t the evidence presented in the first state writ of habeas corpus? The defendant had a lawyer didn’t he? Yes, but one that worse than having no lawyer at all. The trial court appointed a lawyer who had just graduated from law school and had no experience in death penalty litigation. It appears she simply had no idea what she was supposed to do because she raised no meaningful issues in the state writ of habeas corpus. Well, in that case the courts should just allow the defendant another chance to file a state writ of habeas corpus right? Wrong again. The courts are afraid that if the failures or inadequacies of state habeas counsel could result in “do overs” the death penalties appeals really would never come to an end. So if state habeas counsel drops the ball, to bad, so sad,” for the defendant.
Consider the upshot of all this for a moment. The defendant is guilty. As a practical matter the only question is whether he should spend the rest of his life in prison or be executed. The Supreme Court says no automatic death penalty. The jury must here all relevant evidence about the defendant before it can make such a momentous decision. The court appoints the defendant a lawyer who fails to put even a fraction of all the relevant evidence before the jury. The first appeals lawyer can’t do anything about it, even if he knew about it, because the law says in the first appeal the lawyer can only talk about things that were before the court at trial and the whole point is the trial lawyer did not place any of this information before the court. The court then appoints an inexperienced lawyer who has no idea what she is supposed to do to prepare and file a state habeas petition. She does no investigation and thus makes no mention of the failure of the first attorneys to present any of this evidence. Then the courts appoint the defendant a new attorney and tell that attorney that he is limited to carrying forward the frivolous claims of the first habeas attorney. When he informs the court of all the important evidence the jury never heard, the court then responds, “the defendant failed to raise these issues in the first habeas corpus and thus cannot raise them now.” Really? The nearly retarded defendant with a fourth grade education on death row? He didn’t do anything but sit in his cell. The courts initially failed to appoint competent attorneys for the defendant. The attorneys that the court assigned to the defendant failed him and the public, who would like to believe that before people are executed, the jury that imposed the death sentence was making an informed decision. In reality, the courts are far more responsible for the failure of this evidence to presented to the jury than the defendant himself. In fairness to the judges the law provides for this “Catch 22,” but sometimes the law promotes more injustice than justice.
By: Broden & Mickelsen
Posts Tagged ‘Law School’
Some Bizarre Death Penalty Laws
November 25th, 2009Should I Get A Law Degree?
August 12th, 2009Everyone has heard the old line “there are too many lawyers”. While this may be true, the next question one must as is…why? Why is pursuing law such a popular path to follow and what exactly are the benefits and negatives of pursuing a law degree? In this article I’ll explore the ‘right’ reasons and also some ‘wrong’ reasons to pursue this time consuming and expensive undertaking.
The Love of Law
The first and ‘best’ reason to pursue a Law Degree is of course that you absolutely LOVE the law. Do you sit up late at night debating controversial legal issues with your friends? Do you find yourself getting into heated arguments over the right to fair trial of non-citizen combatants in the Iraq war or perhaps the various ethical and legal sides of the abortion issue. Is your favorite channel C-span or Court TV and is your book shelf full of books about famous legal cases or issues?
If this sounds like you then you might be law school material. The best lawyers…and law students have a PASSION for the law. They don’t look at reading 500 pages of a constitutional law book as work, they relish it. While there are certainly other good reasons to go to law school, perhaps no other is as good a predictor of success as your love of the subject matter.
Critical Thinking
One of the often overlooked but perhaps most important skills you learn by attending law school is the development of your critical thinking ability. The ability to look at an issue from its various sides, do the research to fully understand the intricacies of an issue and the ability to argue and defend your position are incredibly valuable skills that will serve you for the rest of your life in and outside of the law field.
Many attorneys find that the research and critical thinking skills help them in areas they never even considered from personal relationships to managing employees and building a business. Of course these skills are crucial in the legal profession itself, but a legal education can be a great exercise in improving one’s ability to handle the complex negotiations of life.
Career Dynamite
Obtaining a law degree can be a tremendous asset when paired with a degree or specialized knowledge in another field. By using your specific knowledge and experience and having a law degree you then are perfectly tailored to work as legal counsel for a plethora of fields.
For instance a pharmacy degree paired with a law degree makes you a great asset as counsel in a firm that specializes in pharmaceutical firms. Architecture, real estate or construction experience teamed with a law degree can make you a great real estate attorney. The real world experience you possess in the specific field makes you an invaluable asset to law firms that might have top notch attorneys but little hands on, practical experience in that field.
Wrong Reasons
It is very important to be aware of the wrong reasons to pursue a law degree…and there are many. Some people decide to go to law school because they simply don’t know what else to do. Besides being an obvious waste of time, most often these people do not end up even working in the legal profession.
Others want to become an attorney not because they really like law, but because they want the perceived ‘prestige’ that having a law degree attaches. People that go to law school for this reason tend to have self-esteem issues and are looking to fill a void with the ‘title’ of lawyer even though they really have very little passion for the profession. They often don’t really know what they want to do and think spending three years in school is a way of either staying out of the ‘real world’ or that they’ll ‘figure it out’ in law school. Law school is so work intensive that is highly recommended you don’t attend unless you really know you want it for the right reasons.
Finally, there’s the money. While any profession is ultimately responsible for giving you a pay check, potential law school candidates should be aware that the vast majority of lawyers don’t make gobs of money. While it is true that if you attend a top, Ivy League school and get into a top firm you can make a very good living, this is really only something that a very small percentage will accomplish. The big money starts if you make Partner in a firm, which is highly competitive and can take many years. For those simply looking to make good money, there are other professions that are comparatively easier to accomplish this in finance and banking and without the need to attend law school. However, if your passion is the law then there are certainly great financial rewards for those that position themselves correctly. For more great articles and insights please visit www.LawDegree.me.
By: Robert Levin
