Judge denies motion for mistrial in Arias penalty phase

May 20, 2013

Monday, May 20, 2013

The Chicago Tribune is reporting that Maricopa County Judge Sherry Alexander denied a defense motion for a mistrial today during the penalty phase in the Jodi Arias case. Court recessed for the day and will resume tomorrow with Ms. Arias presenting her plea to the jury.

The defense moved for a mistrial when its only mitigation witness, Patricia Womack, refused to testify claiming that she had received death threats and was conflicted about the case.

I couldn’t do it,” she told NBC News in an email. “I feel there is so much good in Jodi to be saved but then also someone’s dear life was taken.

Defense attorney, Kirk Nurmi also alleged a separate ground. He accused the prosecutor of intimidating Ms. Womack by threatening to charge her with a crime. However, the Tribune reports that

Prosecutor Juan Martinez told the court on Monday that, in a prior interview with Womack, she had refused to answer questions about her drug use. He said that her refusal to incriminate herself would have precluded her from testifying.

Defense attorney Kirk Nurmi claimed that Womack’s absence would deny the jury a full picture of Arias’ life prior to meeting Alexander in 2006.

Maricopa County Judge Sherry Stephens ruled there was no basis for a mistrial. She also denied a subsequent request by Nurmi to withdraw from the case, and adjourned the court for the day.

This is an interesting issue because prosecutors are not permitted to intimidate defense witnesses into not testifying for a defendant. Unfortunately for the defense, Ms. Womack appears to have been more concerned about her conflicted feelings and if that is the case, I believe this issue will not get Ms Arias a new penalty phase, assuming the jury sentences her to death.

_________________________________________________

I hate to hassle people for money, but contributions have been lagging this month.

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work.

If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Thank you,

Fred

125 Comments | Death Penalty, Jodi Arias Sentencing Phase, MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, Prosecutorial intimidation of defense witnesses, Volunteers | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by masonblue

Questions for readers about Jodi Arias penalty phase

May 16, 2013

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Good afternoon:

The jury in the Jodi Arias case unanimously agreed yesterday that the prosecution proved the aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e., excessive cruelty).

Meanwhile, defense counsel apparently moved to withdraw from the case after they found out that their client had decided to volunteer for the death penalty.

The judge denied their motion.

The case resumed today with the penalty phase.

Defense counsel are in a difficult situation.

Do they ask the jury to grant her request and sentence her to death, or do they ask the jury to disregard her request and sentence her to life without parole?

What would you do, if you were in their situation?

Now, I will up the ante and ask a tougher question. Let us suppose that they have powerful mitigation evidence to present that would likely persuade jurors to reject the death penalty and sentence her to life without parole. If you were representing her, would you present that evidence despite her objections?

_________________________________________________

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work.

If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Thank you,

Fred

88 Comments | Advocating for a death sentence, Death Penalty, Jodi Arias Sentencing Phase, MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, Volunteers | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by masonblue

Explanation of the Jodi Arias sentencing hearing

May 9, 2013

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Good morning:

The jury convicted Jodi Arias of premeditated first degree murder yesterday. Next up is the sentencing. The same jury that convicted her of premeditated murder will decide whether to impose the death sentence.

The hearing is scheduled to start at 1 pm, PDT (4 pm EDT).

Jodi Arias has stated that she wants to be sentenced to death. She has a right to testify and may request that sentence. She may have changed her mind, however.

There is no premeditated murder, no matter how egregious, that automatically results in a death penalty.

Court will reconvene at 1:00 pm PDT for the Eligibility Phase of the trial. This phase is also called the aggravation hearing because the prosecution will have to prove an aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt. The aggravating circumstance alleged in the indictment is that the premeditated murder was “especially cruel.”

The prosecution will probably call the Medical Examiner who performed the autopsy to testify regarding how long the victim remained conscious after she initiated the assault and the extent to which he may have suffered pain and emotional distress before losing consciousness and dying.

The more extreme his suffering and emotional distress, the more likely the jury will decide that the murder was especially cruel.

The defense can call its own expert or rely on cross examining the State’s expert.

Both sides will have an opportunity to argue whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the premeditated murder was especially cruel.

The Court will instruct the jury as follows regarding the meaning of the term “especially cruel.”

The term “cruel” focuses on the victim’s pain and suffering. To find that the murder was
committed in an “especially cruel” manner you must find that the victim consciously suffered
physical or mental pain, distress or anguish prior to death. The defendant must know or should
have known that the victim would suffer.

Potential consequences:

If the State does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an aggravating circumstance
exists, the judge will sentence the defendant to either life imprisonment without the
possibility of release, or life imprisonment with the possibility of release after 25 [35] years.

If the jury unanimously decides beyond a reasonable doubt that an aggravating circumstance
does exist, each juror will decide if mitigating circumstances exist and then, as a jury, you will
decide whether to sentence the defendant to life imprisonment or death. If the sentence is
life imprisonment then the judge will sentence the defendant to either life imprisonment
without the possibility of release from prison, or life imprisonment with the possibility of
release from prison after 25 [35] years.

“Life without the possibility of release from prison” means exactly what it says. The
sentence of “life without possibility of release from prison” means the defendant will never
be eligible to be released from prison for any reason for the rest of the defendant’s life.

If the jury concludes that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the premeditated murder was especially cruel, the sentencing will proceed to the Penalty Phase.

The judge will then read the following instruction to the jury:

While all twelve of you had to unanimously agree that the State proved beyond a
reasonable doubt the existence of a statutory aggravating circumstance, you do not need to
unanimously agree on a particular mitigating circumstance. Each one of you must decide
individually whether any mitigating circumstance exists.

You are not limited to the mitigating circumstances offered by the defendant. You must
also consider any other information that you find is relevant in determining whether to
impose a life sentence, so long as it relates to an aspect of the defendant’s background,
character, propensities, record, or circumstances of the offense.

The defendant bears the burden of proving the existence of any mitigating circumstance
that the defendant offers by a preponderance of the evidence. That is, although the
defendant need not prove its existence beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant must
convince you by the evidence presented that it is more probably true than not true that such
a mitigating circumstance exists. In proving a mitigating circumstance, the defendant may
rely on any evidence already presented and is not required to present additional evidence.
You individually determine whether mitigation exists. In light of the aggravating
circumstance[s] you have found, you must then individually determine if the total of the
mitigation is sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. “Sufficiently substantial to call for
leniency” means that mitigation must be of such quality or value that it is adequate, in the
opinion of an individual juror, to persuade that juror to vote for a sentence of life in prison.
Even if a juror believes that the aggravating and mitigating circumstances are of the same
quality or value, that juror is not required to vote for a sentence of death and may instead
vote for a sentence of life in prison. A juror may find mitigation and impose a life sentence
even if the defendant does not present any mitigation evidence.

A mitigating factor that motivates one juror to vote for a sentence of life in prison may
be evaluated by another juror as not having been proved or, if proved, as not significant to
the assessment of the appropriate penalty. In other words, each of you must determine
whether, in your individual assessment, the mitigation is of such quality or value that it
warrants leniency in this case.

The law does not presume what is the appropriate sentence. The defendant does not
have the burden of proving that life is the appropriate sentence. The State does not have the
burden of proving that death is the appropriate sentence. It is for you, as jurors, to decide
what you individually believe is the appropriate sentence.

In reaching a reasoned, moral judgment about which sentence is justified and
appropriate, you must decide how compelling or persuasive the totality of the mitigating
factors is when compared against the totality of the aggravating factors and the facts and
circumstances of the case. This assessment is not a mathematical one, but instead must be
made in light of each juror’s individual, qualitative evaluation of the facts of the case, the
severity of the aggravating factors, and the quality of the mitigating factors found by each
juror.

If you unanimously agree there is mitigation sufficiently substantial to call for leniency,
then you shall return a verdict of life. If you unanimously agree there is no mitigation, or the
mitigation is not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency, then you shall return a verdict of
death.

Your decision is not a recommendation. Your decision is binding. If you unanimously
find that the defendant should be sentenced to life imprisonment, your foreperson shall sign
the verdict form indicating your decision. If you unanimously find that the defendant should
be sentenced to death, your foreperson shall sign the verdict form indicating your decision.
If you cannot unanimously agree on the appropriate sentence, your foreperson shall tell the
judge.

And there you have it.

Go here to read the full set of pattern jury intructions for the Eligibility and Penalty Phases.

Livestream Link

_________________________________________________

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work.

If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Thank you,

Fred

326 Comments | AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES, Capital Sentencing Phase, Death Penalty, EXECUTION, Jodi Arias Sentencing Phase, MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES | Tagged: | Permalink
Posted by masonblue

Schizophrenia and Predicting Future Dangerousness

August 8, 2012

thejbmission asked an excellent question about schizophrenics and why our legal and mental health systems wait until after a tragic event occurs before doing anything to prevent it.

The short answer is mental health experts cannot accurately and reliably predict future dangerousness by schizophrenics. They are as likely to be right as they would be if they flipped a coin.

Most people afflicted by schizophrenia are not violent and, since they are not a danger to themselves or to others, they cannot be involuntarily committed to a secure mental health treatment facility. Without medication they are often delusional and when they are delusional, they cannot hold a job. The antipsychotic medication that keeps the delusions at bay has unpleasant side effects, however, that leave them feeling deadened like zombies. Families can do little to help them and they are often homeless wandering aimlessly about our cities talking to the voices no one else can hear. They occasionally commit petty crimes to survive and when they do, they are likely to be arrested and taken to jail. They plead guilty, are sentenced to time served, and released to the streets to begin the endless cycle anew.

Our mental health laws prohibit involuntary commitments unless a mental health professional, who typically is a screener at a hospital ER, finds probable cause that the person is dangerous to himself or to others. Such a finding usually results after an attempt to commit suicide.

The involuntary commitment is limited to 72 hours and cannot be extended unless approved by a judge following a hearing. The patient has a right to be present at the hearing and represented by counsel. If the judge finds probable cause to believe that the patient is a danger to himself or to others, the involuntary commitment will be extended for a period of 30 days and, upon review, may be extended for another 30 day period, etc.

Most people are released after the 72 hour period.

Predictions by mental health experts regarding who will commit acts of future violence are about as likely to be accurate as a coin flip. Therefore, there is no factual, medical or legal justification for singling out anyone, whether schizophrenic or not, and confining them for any reason for any length of time unless, due to a recent event, they are a danger to themselves or to others. That danger must be fact-based and immediate.

13 Comments | Involuntary Commitments, James Eaton Holmes, Jared Loughner, Predicting Future Dangerousness, Schizophrenia | Permalink
Posted by masonblue

Loughner: Defense and Prosecution Benefit from Guilty Plea in Exchange for No Death Penalty

August 6, 2012

According to recent news reports, Jared Laughner is now competent and will plead guilty in federal court tomorrow (Tuesday) in exchange for the prosecution’s agreement not to seek the death penalty. No additional details were reported. I have written the following article based on the assumption that these reports are true.

I believe both sides and the public benefit from this agreement for the following reasons.

The defense benefits because there is a significant probability that it would fail to convince the jury that Mr. Loughner was insane when he shot all of the victims. As I have explained in previous articles, the legal test for insanity requires proof that a defendant was suffering from a mental disease or defect when he committed the crime, such that he was unable to distinguish between right and wrong and conform his conduct to the requirements of law.

Most mentally ill defendants, including those who were psychotic and delusional when they committed the crime, cannot satisfy this test because they knew they did something wrong and would get in trouble with the law, if they were caught. That is, the defense will likely fail if there is any evidence that the defendant knew he was committing a crime or if he attempted to conceal evidence of the crime and his participation in it. In addition, a defendant does not go free, if he is found not guilty by reason of insanity.

The prosecution benefits from the agreement because it achieves the most probable outcome of a trial without having to expend all of the effort, time and money necessary to try the case. A guilty plea also avoids a lengthy appeal process and establishes a finality to the legal process. That in turn creates an important opportunity for victims and their families to begin the process of healing themselves and moving on with their lives.

There is no doubt that Mr. Loughner was psychotic and delusional when he committed the crimes and, even if the jury rejected the insanity defense and found him guilty, there is a significant probability that the jury would conclude that his impaired mental condition when he committed the crimes was a sufficient mitigating circumstance to justify sentencing him to life in prison instead of sentencing him to death.

The public benefits from the agreement because it produces a fair and equitable result, given Mr. Loughner’s serious mental illness and disabilities. Schizophrenia is a horrific disease that destroys lives by causing delusions that the person cannot distinguish from reality. Even though medication can reduce and often prevent delusions, it has unpleasant zombie-like side effects that eliminate joy and excitement. Since schizophrenia is a debilitating disease that no one would voluntarily choose, basic human decency, empathy and mercy call for a life sentence, rather than the death penalty.

Before the Court can accept a guilty plea, it must determine whether Mr. Loughner is competent. Mr. Loughner had refused to take anti-psychotic medication until the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the trial court’s order to medicate him forcibly, if necessary. I think we can reasonably conclude that he has taken the medication and is now competent since this hearing would not have been scheduled, unless he were competent and his lawyers were able to explain and discuss the terms of the plea agreement, including the important constitutional rights he will be giving up, if he pleads guilty.

We can expect one or more mental health experts will testify tomorrow that he is competent. That is, that he is oriented as to time and place, understands his legal predicament and the possible consequences if convicted, can tell the difference between the truth and a lie, can communicate with his lawyers and assist them to represent him, is capable of making decisions that are in his best interest, and understands the obligation to answer the Court’s questions truthfully.

Assuming the Court finds him competent, it will ask him a series of questions about the guilty plea to determine if he has read and reviewed it with his lawyers, understands all of its terms, and knows that he will give up the right to go to trial if he pleads guilty.

After confirming that he has knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently decided to waive his right to trial in order to receive the benefit of his agreement with the prosecution, the Court will ask him to state in his own words what he did.

Defendants usually follow the advice of their lawyers to provide a simple bare-bones set of facts that support the charges to which they are pleading guilty.

If the statement is sufficient, the Court will accept the guilty plea and approve the plea agreement.

Normally, sentencing takes place six weeks later to allow time for the United States Probation Office to prepare a report regarding the defendant’s role in the offenses, the applicable sentencing ranges for the offenses, and a sentencing recommendation. Since the parties and the Court will have agreed to the sentence, there will not be any need for the report. Do not be surprised if the Court waives the presentence report with the agreement of the prosecution and the defense and proceeds directly to impose a life sentence.

I believe this probably is a fair, just and equitable resolution of the case. I say “probably” because I do not know if the State of Arizona is satisfied with the outcome. The United States lacked jurisdiction to prosecute Mr. Loughner for four of the murders because those victims were not federal employees carrying out their official duties when they were killed.

The four private citizens were:

(1) Christina Taylor-Green (age 9);

(2) Dorwin Stoddard (age 76);

(3) Dorothy Murray (age 76); and

(4) Phyllis Schneck (age 79).

The State of Arizona has jurisdiction to prosecute Mr. Loughner for those four murders, since the crimes were committed in Arizona.

The State of Arizona also has a death penalty and it could prosecute Mr. Loughner for those murders and seek the death penalty, if he is convicted.

I believe the defense has attempted to do everything that it possibly can to persuade the state prosecutors to agree not to seek the death penalty against Mr. Loughner, if he pleads guilty to the federal charges.

I suspect they have decided not to seek the death penalty because they probably realize they would have no better chance than the federal prosecutors of convincing a jury to sentence Mr. Loughner to death, given the powerful mitigation evidence of mental illness.

Should this be the case, they may do nothing or they may have already agreed to charge Mr. Loughner with the four murders and the remaining crimes that the United States lacked jurisdiction to prosecute, but forego seeking the death penalty, if he pleads guilty to those offenses.

Although such an agreement would not add any time to his sentence, it might appease the prosecution’s desire to obtain convictions of record for crimes that Mr. Loughner committed but could not be prosecuted for in federal court due to lack of jurisdiction.

Mr. Loughner would not have much incentive to plead guilty in federal court to avoid the death penalty only to have Arizona seek the death penalty. Since he has agreed to plead guilty, I am inclined to believe that the State of Arizona has agreed not to seek the death penalty.

Three party global resolutions are tough, but not impossible to pull off. We will find out if that happened tomorrow.

20 Comments | Competency, Death Penalty, Guilty Plea, Insanity Defense, Jared Loughner, M'Naughten Rule, MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, Schizophrenia | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by masonblue

Holmes: Why the Prosecution is Waiting to Decide Whether to Seek the Death Penalty

August 4, 2012

James Eagan Holmes has been charged with 24 counts of Murder in the First Degree and 116 counts of attempted murder for killing 12 people and wounding 58 during a shooting spree inside a movie theater at the midnight showing of the new Batman film, Dark Knight Rising.

Facts are difficult to come by because the Court “has issued a gag order on lawyers and law enforcement, sealing the court file and barring the University of Colorado, Denver from releasing public records relating to Holmes’ year there as a neuroscience graduate student.”

I have written two articles about the case here and here reviewing the potential civil liability of the University of Colorado to the victims of the shooting spree for the alleged failure of its employees, psychiatrist Dr. Lynne Fenton and the members of the university’s threat assessment team to warn the police about a possible threat to harm people that Mr. Holmes may have expressed to Dr. Fenton on or about the day that he formally withdrew in early June as a student in a Ph.D. program in neuroscience.

Probably due to the Court’s gag order, the school has not yet disclosed the specifics of Mr. Holmes’s statement to Dr. Fenton. All that we know so far is that she attempted to convene the mental health clinic’s threat assessment team to review what he said, but the team declined to do so because he had withdrawn from the school.

As I explained in my two articles, given the restrictive and limiting language in the Colorado statute, I believe it is unlikely that the university will be held liable to the victims of the shooting for failing to warn the police about Mr. Holmes. We will have to wait and see what Mr. Holmes said to Dr. Fenton before we can definitively wrap up this discussion.

Now I want to discuss a different subject in the case; namely, the death penalty. The prosecution has charged Mr. Holmes with two murder counts per homicide victim. The two charges contain different elements and basically allege two different ways to commit the same offense. CBS News explains:

Holmes is facing two separate charges for each person killed or injured. The second charge for each alleges that in killing or injuring, Holmes evidenced “an attitude of universal malice manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life generally.”

The prosecution announced shortly after filing charges against Mr. Holmes, that it has not yet decided whether it will seek the death penalty, if Mr. Holmes is convicted of murder.

Translated into the language we speak, that means it is waiting for the defense to complete its mitigation investigation and submit its report to the prosecution to consider in determining whether to file a notice that it will seek the death penalty.

Mitigation evidence is any evidence about the defendant or the crime he committed that in fairness or in mercy calls for a sentence of less than death.

Mr. Holmes appears to suffer from a serious mental illness, possibly a type of schizophrenia. The defense likely has assembled a team of mental health experts who are testing and evaluating his competency to stand trial and well as his mental functioning. No doubt they have been reaching far back into his life collecting all existing school, medical and mental health records.

Mitigation investigation has developed into an art form as well as a necessary and highly specialized skill over the course of the past 30 years. The most common reason for appellate court reversals of death sentences has been ineffective assistance of defense counsel for failing to conduct a thorough mitigation investigation.

A diagnosis of schizophrenia would be powerful mitigating evidence, even if it did not establish legal insanity, because schizophrenia is a debilitating mental disease over which a person has little or no control. Therefore, traditional arguments for the death penalty that are based on the idea of holding people accountable for their actions by sentencing them to death, lose power in the face of evidence that the person is delusional, not like others, and incapable of making responsible decisions on a regular basis. Most people recognize that there is something fundamentally unfair about sentencing someone to death who lacked the capacity to make rational decisions.

Mr. Holmes may also satisfy the test for legal insanity. That is, that he suffers from a mental disease or defect such that he cannot distinguish between right and wrong and conform his conduct to the requirements of law. Insanity is another mitigating factor.

Regardless of his mental condition, however, he committed horrific acts that required sufficient capacity to plan and carry out a moderately complicated scheme.

When the prosecution receives the defense mitigation report, it will submit it to its own panel of mental health experts for review and comment.

Eventually, both sides will meet and engage in serious discussions regarding whether a mentally ill man should be executed or spend the rest of his life in prison without possibility of parole.

Whether the prosecution ultimately decides to file the notice that it will seek the death penalty will depend on the outcome of those discussions and the thoroughness and quality of the defense mitigation report.

74 Comments | Death Penalty, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Insanity Defense, James Eaton Holmes, M'Naughten Rule, MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, Mitigation Investigation, Murder 1, Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by masonblue

Mitigation Investigation And Jury Sentencing In Death Penalty Cases

March 14, 2012

Ahem, and now back to our regularly scheduled program. That would be the law, in case you are keeping score. This article should be read in conjunction with my earlier article, Does A Seven-Year-Wait-Behind-Bars Violate The Sixth-Amendment Right To A Speedy Trial?

I practiced law in the State of Washington where a judge imposes the sentence in all criminal cases, except death penalty cases. In most cases, the sentencing occurs approximately 6 weeks after the defendant pleads guilty or is found guilty by a jury. During the 6-week period, the Probation Office prepares a presentence report for the sentencing judge and the defense prepares for the sentencing by conducting a mini-mitigation investigation and arranging to have a defense expert evaluate the client, if there is a possible mental illness or impaired functioning issue due to an underlying alcohol, drug, or sexual deviance problem.

Federal court works the same way.

Death penalty cases are different because the jury that heard the evidence and convicted the defendant also sentences the defendant. Jury sentencing, in other words.

In death penalty cases, the courts proceed to sentencing within a day or two after receiving the guilty verdict, rather than recess the trial for six weeks pending the sentencing hearing. Therefore, the mitigation investigation must take place before the trial starts, which is putting the cart before the horse since a mitigation investigation must necessarily proceed from the assumption that the client is guilty.

Picture this: Very few people can afford to retain counsel in a death penalty case. Therefore, almost all death penalty lawyers are private counsel appointed by the court and paid at public expense, or they are public defenders. With few exceptions, clients charged with a death penalty offense figure that a court appointed lawyer or public defender is not a ‘real’ lawyer. Clients typically presume the lawyer is really working for the prosecutor and does not give a damn about them or their case.

Okay, let me now introduce you to Mr. Hyde. He is charged with 5 rape-murders and the prosecution is seeking the death penalty. He claims he is innocent and he is convinced that you are lower than pond-scum, unfit to sleep with the dogs, and you are going to sell him out. Greet him with your brightest smile and explain that you need some information from him to get your mitigation investigator started.

And, for God’s sake, don’t forget to duck.

Now that you understand the importance of delay . . .

Judges are concerned that it would be practically impossible to reassemble the jury following a long break after it returns a guilty verdict in a death case and they are not going to sequester jurors for six weeks with nothing to do in order to prevent them from seeing or reading anything about the case and to assure that they show-up for the sentencing hearing. That would be too expensive and impossible to police. They know that most jurors want to get on with their lives and would resent and be distracted while facing a decision to sentence a defendant to death or life without parole. Some jurors might even run away to avoid making the decision or sicken and die from stress-related causes. Sending the police out to find missing jurors would waste time and divert overstretched resources. In addition, judges know that proceeding with less than 12 jurors would raise issues about whether the defendant’s right to trial by jury was compromised. Meanwhile, retaining alternate jurors for the duration of the trial and a 6-week continuance for a sentencing hearing is impractical.

Prosecutors like to shorten the break ‘to strike while the iron is hot,’ so to speak. That is, while the jurors are still emotionally affected by the horror of the crime and more likely to vote for the death penalty. Theoretically, however, death-penalty verdicts should not be vengeance based, right? How is that for an understatement?

Defense counsel always want to lengthen the break as much as possible hoping that the delay will cool tempers and increase the possibility that the jury will return a verdict of life without parole. The more extreme members of our select fraternity and sorority of life savers, would prefer the sentencing hearing be continued for ten or more years, if not indefinitely. I include myself in that select category, just so you know where I am coming from.

In reality, we are lucky if we get more than 48 hours before we have to face a stern and hostile jury. You do not know what constitutes a tough sell until you try to convince a jury to spare your client’s life.

Death penalty trials take a long time. In the cases that I tried, for example, jury selection averaged 3 weeks (attorney conducted voir dire of prospective jurors individually out of the presence of the other prospective jurors) and the evidentiary portion of the guilt phase lasted from 6 weeks (my shortest) to 9 months (my longest).

In practice, because the client’s life is at stake, the mitigation investigation in a death-penalty case is far more extensive and intensive compared to the ordinary case.

I say ‘ordinary’ because there is no comparison to the intensity of a death penalty trial.

Mitigation investigation begins with collecting all available documents concerning your client, starting with medical reports regarding the mother’s pregnancy and your client’s birth. Then we want all medical, school, military, employment, and institutional records concerning the client.

After assembling all available records, we identify, locate, and interview every living person who had a significant relationship with the client and every person for whom he performed a favor or did something nice that he did not have to do.

We are looking for evidence of what we call “a hole in the head.” That is, evidence of an organic brain disorder or injury that impaired functioning and might have caused or contributed to the commission of the crime or crimes with which the client is charged.

We are also looking for evidence that the client might have been abused sexually, psychologically, or physically as a child. As you might well imagine, clients and families often would rather die than open up and talk about that sort of deeply personal, embarrassing, and humiliating information to strangers. We often find that they so deeply suppress or spin memories of abuse to excuse the abuser that it practically takes a miracle to break through the denial and get at the truth. And we have to dig for that information without planting false memories.

We search until we find something.

Why?

Because we honor and never judge our clients, no matter what they have done in their lives, and we do everything possible within the boundaries of the law to save their lives.

We call it God’s work.

And most of the time the money we are paid for doing this work does not even cover our monthly overhead.

Leave a Comment » | Death Penalty, Enlightenment, MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, Mitigation Investigation, Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by masonblue

Does A Seven-Year-Wait Behind Bars Violate The Sixth Amendment Right To A Speedy Trial?

March 9, 2012

What were you doing in March, 2005?

On February 27, the Georgia Supreme Court denied Khanhn Dinh Phan’s request to dismiss the death penalty case pending against him. Such an order under ordinary circumstances would not merit comment, but these are not ordinary circumstances. Khanh Dinh Phan has been locked up in the Gwinnett County Jail in Georgia for seven years without a trial.

In addition to rejecting his argument that the State of Georgia has violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial (See: Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972); Strunk v. U.S., 412 U.S. 434 (1973)), the Court removed his court-appointed counsel and appointed new counsel over his objections, even though his lawyers did not cause the delay in bringing him to trial and did nothing wrong. In fact, they did what they were required to do and what I would have done if I had been representing Mr. Phan in order to provide him with effective assistance of counsel, which is what the Sixth Amendment requires (See Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)).

The Facts

Mr. Phan is charged with intentionally killing Hung Thai and his two-year-old son by shooting them in the head execution-style, allegedly as punishment for Hung Thai’s failure to pay a gambling debt. Mr. Thai’s wife, Hoangganh Ta, was also shot in the head, but she survived and returned to live in Vietnam after emerging from a coma seven months after the shooting. She has identified Mr. Phan as the shooter and she also provided law enforcement with information regarding the alleged motive.

The trial court appointed two lawyers to represent Mr. Phan, which is standard operating procedure in a death penalty case. The two lawyers were Chris Adams, who was the Director of the Georgia Capital Defender’s Office at that time, and Bruce Harvey, a lawyer in private practice.

The Pretrial and Mitigation Investigation

Adams and Harvey did what any qualified and experienced death-penalty lawyers would have done in this case. After establishing a relationship of confidence and trust with their indigent client, they asked the trial court to authorize the expenditure of reasonable funds to travel with an investigator to Vietnam to interview Hoangganh Ta about the homicides and to interview members of Mr. Phan’s family, friends, and others who knew him in Vietnam such as neighbors, teachers, employers, counselors, and doctors who might have provided him with medical treatment. The former is routine pretrial investigation that should be conducted in any case and the latter, which we call mitigation investigation, is required in all capital cases so that no stone is left unturned in the effort to discover evidence about the defendant, or the circumstances of the crime, that might in fairness or mercy potentially cause a juror to vote for a sentence of less than death (See Porter v. McCollum, 130 S.Ct. 447 (2009)).

The mitigation investigation must be conducted prior to trial, which is necessarily before the defendant has been acquitted or convicted, because, if the defendant is convicted, the case would proceed to a sentencing phase immediately after the jury returned the guilty verdict, or within a few days, not allowing sufficient time to conduct the investigation. Clients rarely understand the necessity to pry deeply into their past history and relationships searching for clues to explain seemingly unexplainable homicidal behavior that they are adamantly denying. They regard the investigation as a form of rape and it is very difficult for the lawyers to establish a relationship of trust and confidence when the client wants to hear the lawyer say, “I believe you when you say you are innocent and I will do everything that I possibly can to win this case.”

This tension explains why a death-penalty case is much easier to handle, if the client admits guilt. Most clients, however, deny guilt inevitably generating conflict in the attorney-client relationship over the necessity for and wide ranging scope of the mitigation evidence. From the results of post-conviction DNA testing and reinvestigation, we now know for certain that a significant percentage of death-penalty defendants are innocent (approximately 20%). The attorney-client conflict generated by the mitigation investigation is an additional, but no less valid reason to abolish the death penalty.

In this case, Mr. Phan’s lawyers appear to have navigated successfully through the minefield.

Gwinnett County Cannot Afford To Pay For What The Law Requires

Mr. Phan’s case went off the rails when Gwinnett County could not afford to pay for the trip to Vietnam. Defense counsel could not agree to forego the necessary trip and they could not reasonably or legally be expected to finance the trip themselves.

Contrary to long established United State Supreme Court precedent, Gwinnett County also refused to pay for a defense expert regarding the effect of gunshot injuries to the brain on memory (Cf Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985)).

Since defense counsel could not adequately prepare for trial, the trial could not go forward. And so, Mr. Phan languished and continues to languish in jail waiting for his day in court, a day that may never come.

The Georgia Supreme Court’s Decision

Notwithstanding the passage of seven years without a trial, due to the trial court’s failure to pay for reasonably necessary defense costs to prepare for trial that it is required to compensate (Cf, Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) and its progeny), the Georgia Supreme Court not only refused to dismiss the case for violation of Mr. Phan’s right to a speedy trial, it aggravated the situation by dismissing his lawyers replacing them with public defenders who will cost less because they are already paid a salary, regardless of how many hours they work, rather than an hourly wage.

Rather than requiring the Gwinnett County Circuit Court to pay the necessary and reasonable expenses for counsel to defend Mr. Phan, an obligation imposed by long-standing United States Supreme Court precedent, the Georgia Supreme Court fashioned a ‘solution’ to save money by destroying an existing attorney-client relationship by appointing new lawyers. Presumably, the Court believes that the financial savings can free-up sufficient funds to pay for the reasonably necessary expenses that must be paid for the trial to go forward.

Whether and when that will happen is anybody’s guess.

Conclusion

The prosecuting attorney in Gwinnett County should not be seeking the death penalty in a case when the circuit court cannot afford to pay for the reasonably necessary expenses to defend the case.

Ultimately, of course, it is the State of Georgia’s responsibility to budget and pay for the reasonable and necessary expenses that the county circuit courts must pay to fund indigent defense. Death penalty cases are expensive and, if Georgia wants to kill people, then Georgia must bear the cost of prosecuting, defending, and killing them.

Savaging and scavenging a successful seven-year attorney-client relationship to free-up money to pay for reasonably necessary defense expenses is a willful and intentional destruction of Mr. Phan’s right to counsel and a gross denial of his right to a speedy trial — all of which has been done to fund a robbing-Peter-to-pay-Paul scheme.

The Georgia Supreme Court’s decision is little more than a variation of the Ponzi Scheme. That it would employ such a tactic to kill someone speaks volumes as to its regard for the United States Constitution, the Sixth Amendment, and the Rule of Law.

If the right to a speedy trial means anything, it means that no one should be forced to rot in jail for seven years without going to trial. After all this time, he is no closer to trial than he was after he was arrested in 2005.

Shameful and disgusting.

For additional information, see John Rudolph’s article at the Huffington Post.

Leave a Comment » | Death Penalty, MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel, Sixth Amendment Right to Present a Defense, Sixth Amendment Right to Speedy Trial | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by masonblue

Why I Am Opposed To The Death Penalty

October 23, 2011

I am opposed to the death penalty in all cases. Period.

I have many reasons. Here are a few of them.

First and foremost, I oppose it because it is immoral. That it is imposed following a jury trial and appellate review, does not wash the defendant’s blood off the jury’s hands and, by extension, our hands because state sanctioned premeditated murder is still premeditated murder. No government ever should be in the business of killing its own people.

Second, death penalty cases typically cost more than three times the cost of incarcerating a defendant to life without possibility of parole.

Third, the death penalty has no deterrent effect. It does not reduce homicide rates. In fact, the opposite is true. Homicide rates are highest in the states that have a death penalty and lowest in the states that do not have a death penalty.

Fourth, our criminal justice system is so infected with racism, corrupt, and broken that it is impossible to know for certain if any given defendant committed the crime charged and, if he did, whether he deserves the death penalty, as opposed to life without parole.

Most people do not know that under our laws there is no murder, however heinous or depraved, that automatically results in a death sentence. When a jury convicts a defendant of a death eligible offense, the case proceeds to a sentencing phase in which the jury ultimately must decide whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating evidence (typically the murder and the defendant’s prior record, if any) so outweighs the mitigating evidence (evidence about the defendant and his role in committing the murder) that the defendant should forfeit his life. Assuring consistency that similarly situated defendants convicted of committing similar murders are consistently sentenced to life without possibility of parole instead of death, or vice versa, has proven to be impossible within states, let alone between states.

In Callins v. Collins, 510 U.S. 1141 (1994), Justice Harry Blackmun dissented from the United States Supreme Court’s denial of review in a death penalty case stating,

From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death. For more than 20 years I have endeavored — indeed, I have struggled — along with a majority of this Court, to develop procedural and substantive rules that would lend more than the mere appearance of fairness to the death penalty endeavor. Rather than continue to coddle the Court’s delusion that the desired level of fairness has been achieved and the need for regulation eviscerated, I feel morally and intellectually obligated simply to concede that the death penalty experiment has failed. It is virtually self-evident to me now that no combination of procedural rules or substantive regulations ever can save the death penalty from its inherent constitutional deficiencies. The basic question — does the system accurately and consistently determine which defendants “deserve” to die? — cannot be answered in the affirmative. It is not simply that this Court has allowed vague aggravating circumstances to be employed, see, e. g., Arave v. Creech, 507 U. S. 463 (1993), relevant mitigating evidence to be disregarded, see, e. g., Johnson v. Texas, 509 U. S. 350 (1993), and vital judicial review to be blocked, see, e. g., Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U. S. 722 (1991). The problem is that the inevitability of factual, legal, and moral error gives us a system that we know must wrongly kill some defendants, a system that fails to deliver the fair, consistent, and reliable sentences of death required by the Constitution.

He concluded,

Perhaps one day this Court will develop procedural rules or verbal formulas that actually will provide consistency, fairness, and reliability in a capital sentencing scheme. I am not optimistic that such a day will come. I am more optimistic, though, that this Court eventually will conclude that the effort to eliminate arbitrariness while preserving fairness “in the infliction of [death] is so plainly doomed to failure that it—and the death penalty— must be abandoned altogether.” Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U. S. 420, 442 (1980) (Marshall, J., concurring in judgment). I may not live to see that day, but I have faith that eventually it will arrive. The path the Court has chosen lessens us all. I dissent.

Justice Blackmun was a conservative Republican who believed strongly in the death penalty when he was appointed to the Supreme Court. As you can see, he finally reached the conclusion that it is impossible to fairly and equitably decide who lives and who dies. I reached the same conclusion, based on my 30 years of experience as a lawyer specializing in death penalty defense and forensics.

Justice Blackmun died in 1999.

Leave a Comment » | AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES, Death Penalty, EXECUTION, MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, Racism | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by masonblue

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 297 other followers

%d bloggers like this: