Waco Criminal Law Blog : Waco Criminal Lawyer & Attorney : Walter Reaves Law Firm : DWI, DUI, Drug Crimes, Appeals : Waco, McLennan County, Texas

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decided an unusual writ case last week, which contains some disturbing admissions - at least they are disturbing to me. Hector Medina was appointed extremely competent lawyers to pursue an application for writ of habeas corpus in his death penalty case. His lawyer made a tactical decision to submit a cursory writ, which was only four page long. His reasoning - which I don't fully understand or agree with - was that he wanted to change the pleading rules in habeas cases.

The court recognized the writ was not complete, and there was probably a lot more there. However, they couldn't decide what to do. If they denied the writ then Mr. Medina had lost his chance at relief through post-conviction proceedings. They couldn't force the lawyer to re-file, nor could they find him ineffective because they have already held that there is no right to effective assistance in a writ proceeding. So they came up with a new approach - they found the writ was not a "cognizable writ application", held the lawyer in contempt and appointed new counsel.

All that's fine and good - at least Mr. Medina is not going to be executed without having presented a complete writ application, which the Court will probably deny. The disturbing part comes in the dissent of Justice Keasler, which points out that the application in this case is no different from others they have denied on the merits. He noted that during his time on the court he had seen a number of applications that were just as poorly prepared as this one, and they were all denied.

The disturbing part of that statement is that he acknowledges the Court knows they are denying relief when they know one someone has not been properly represented. Since you don't have the right to effective assistance, it's too bad. To me that is inexcusable.

If you are going to execute someone you should only do so after their case has been fully reviewed. Yet the court is affirming death sentences when they know the person's case is not being fully reviewed. While you would hope all lawyers would take their jobs seriously the said fact is we know they don't. The court shouldn't be able to pass the buck, and say "that's not my job."  I would like to think this is a step toward that, but I'm not convinced.

If nothing else, this should show just how screwed up our death penalty system is.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I didn't consider it a big surprise that that the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles denied clemency for Troy Davis.I haven't reviewed the evidence, and I have no idea whether he is guilty or innocent. But I don't think that should be the point. If we are going to impose the ultimate punishment and execute someone shouldn't we be absolutely certain they are guilty? If there is any reasonable possibility that they aren't, the costs of making a mistake are simply to high.

I've said before that I believe we are all going to be judged on the decisions and choices we make. And I don't think you get a pass on something like this by claiming  "I was just following procedure(or the law)".  That is nothing more than passing the buck - in the end, no one is responsible. The jury can say we decided the case based on what was presented, the State can say we presented the evidence we had, and the courts can say we reviewed the record. Once the case is affirmed, the courts can fall back on the finding that the defendant has not met the legal burden the law requires. In the end, a case can go all the way through the process even though people have serious doubts about guilt of the defendant.

It's no secret that I don't support the death penalty. My beliefs are both practical and religious. They system in place is too prone to mistakes to impose the ultimate punishment - mistakes which we have seen over the last few years. That is coupled with a belief in the sanctity of life, and produces a pretty strong opinion. I realize others don't share my views, and that's fine. But I don't see how even the most hardened death penalty proponent can endorse executing anyone whose guilt is not absolutely certain.

I don't know any of the people involved, but I doubt few will lose any sleep over their decisions. Either they don't care, or they rationalize it away. Unfortunately, the review system provides plenty of ways to do that.

If we are going to have the death penalty, there should be final review aimed at answering the question whether there is an chance the defendant is guilty. If there is, don't execute them. Doing so only ensures that at some point a mistake will be made - a mistake that can never be undone.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Several weeks ago Randall Thompson's future was probably looking pretty good. He was scheduled to be executed, but the parole board voted to recommend a commutation to life. In Texas that's a rare thing - I'm sure his lawyers had to look several times to make sure they were reading it right.  If you compare it to the lottery, he was told all his numbers matched. All he had to do was collect his money - in this case get the approval of the Governor.

The governor of course is Rick Perry - who just happens to be engaged in a heated primary election. Never thought to be soft on the death penalty, Gov. Perry had commuted sentences before based on the parole board recommendation. Too bad he didn't do it in this case - Mr. Thompson was executed after Gov. Perry refused to follow the recommendation.

I'm sure Gov. Perry has his reasons - just like he continues to insist Todd Willingham is guilty. I think the truth is that he didn't want a commutation to be an campaign ssue. His base of support is to put it mildly "off the chart" on criminal justice issues. They believe in more crimes, and tougher punishments. Heaven forbid you suggest someone shouldn't be executed - even if there are doubts about their guilt.

The bottom line is that if Mr. Thompson's execution had been scheduled a few months earlier he would probably be spending the rest of his life in prison - just like his co-defendant.

This was upsetting enough; then I had to read Mark Bennett's comments, which included a post by Mr. Thompson's habeas attorney. It appears that Mr. Thompson was the victim of an all too often situation - bad lawyering. Any doubt is dispelled by looking at what happened to his co-defendant, who was represented by a good lawyer. In short, the justice system failed him.

I've written before about my belief that we are all going to be accountable for our actions some day. Most of us have a lot of things we aren't proud of - and aren't going to get off the off the hook for. Imagine having to explain why you thought it was better to let someone be executed so you wouldn't damage your re-election chances.

There has to be a better way to handle death penalty cases. Whatever it is, it's not leaving decisions in the hands of those who worried more about their own future - i.e. politicians. They are always going to be decisions with political ramifications. Any doubt - look at the the heat coming down on Mike Huckabee for reducing the sentence of Randall Clemmons (who recently gunned down four police officers). When a decision like that goes bad, it's easy pickings for your opponents.

Politics should not enter into decisions on clemency and communation. In fact, the political ramifiactions of a decision have nothing to do with the meritts. Unfortunately, as long as politicians are the ones making those decisions, it will remain.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I recently attended the 10th annual march against the death penalty in Austin. I'm not big on marches and rallies - i think that was only the second one I've been to in my life. I went because I was invited to talk about the case of Cameron Todd Willingham. He was the centerpiece of the rally, and his picture was everywhere. Everyone there is convinced that this is the case that will change public opinion on the death penalty - I'm not convinced.

I've given this a lot of thought, and finally realized that this argument - that people's minds will change if they are convinced an innocent person was executed - involves an underlying assumption. The assumption is that general public will really care. I don't mean care in the sense that they believe it was a terrible thing, but care in the sense that it personally effects them. You only have to look at the most recent public opinion polls to know this is true - the majority of people already believe an innocent person has been executed, but they still support the death penalty.

I think the problem is that we have lost the sense that human life is sacred. The majority of anti-death penalty supporters are just as guilty as everyone else. My sense is that most in the anti-death penalty camp don't believe human life is sacred from the moment of conception. On the other hand, the majority in the anti-abortion camp have no problem with the death penalty, and often times are its most ardent supporters.

Almost 30 years ago (1968 to be exact), Pope John Paul II authored an encyclical - In Humanae Vitae. In that document he made a number of predictions, many of which have been proven to be true. Pope John Paul II also coined the phrase "culture of death". His theory was that we live in a culture of death because we no longer value human life - which is a reflection of the divine.

I think he was right on. You don't have to be Catholic - or even religious - to recognize the problem. In my opinion, beliefs about the death penalty are not going to change until peoples beliefs about the sacredness life change. I'm not knocking the anti-death penalty crowds - I admire their passion, which is something missing from far too many people. I simply believe that is going to take more than proving an innocent person was executed to cause a change in attitudes.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link