Failure to Properly Prepare for Trial, Basis for Federal Habeas Relief
By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
In 2001 the two female justices on the U.S. Supreme Court spoke out about the quality of legal representation afforded to criminal defendants facing the death penalty in this nation.
“After 20 years on (the) high court,” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said, “I have to acknowledge that serious questions are being raised about whether the death penalty is being fairly administered in this country. Perhaps it’s time to look at minimum standards for appointed counsel in death cases and adequate compensation for appointed counsel when they are used.”
In April of that year Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was more direct in an Associated Press account: “People who are well represented at trial do not get the death penalty … I have yet to see a death case among the dozens coming to the Supreme Court on eve-of-executions stay applications in which the defendant was well represented at trial.”
Before the 2001 public criticisms offered by Justices O’Connor and Ginsburg, three major newspapers had conducted investigations that offered compelling evidence about the deplorable legal representation provided in capital cases. The Chicago Tribune reported on November 15, 1999
that 12% of those condemned to death from 1976 to 1999 were represented by “an attorney who had been, or was later, disbarred or suspended—disciplinary sanctions reserved for conduct so incompetent, unethical or even criminal that the state believes an attorney’s license should be taken away.” The newspaper said that an additional 9.5% had “received a new trial or sentencing because their attorney’s competence rendered the verdict or sentence unfair, court records show.” (Ken Armstrong and Steve Mills, “Inept Defenses Cloud Verdict”). (more…)
Subscribe
