Post by Anja Nieser on Sept 25, 2006 0:28:57 GMT -5
Death row appeals system flawed, advocates say
Texas allows inadequate legal work in the final stages of death penalty
cases and provides minimal oversight for attorneys who handle the life or
death claims, judges and advocates contend.
"It's a problem. It needs to be addressed," said Judge Cheryl Johnson, a
Republican on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. "But I don't think
there are any easy solutions to it."
Writs of habeas corpus are the court challenges meant to ensure no one
unfairly convicted is executed. Habeas attorneys are supposed to find any
misconduct or mistakes made by the defendant's trial lawyers,
investigators, prosecutors, judges and jurors in the case.
But if a state habeas attorney doesn't find or address a detail, the
inmate may never get another chance to raise it.
Activists say there are several examples in Texas of faulty work in writs
of habeas corpus, the San Antonio Express-New reported in Sunday editions.
In one case, an attorney working on a death row inmate's final state
appeal filed an incomplete and vague petition with at least one error. The
work by attorney Mark Alexander, of McAllen, elicited a 606-page response
from the judge.
"Applicant totally misinterprets what actually occurred in this case,"
State District Judge Noe Gonzalez of Edinburg wrote about one of the
attorney's claims.
A committee of attorneys and citizens formally complained about Alexander
to the State Bar of Texas. But the agency dismissed the grievance against
him.
Alexander remains on a state list of 136 lawyers who can be appointed to
challenge convictions. His former client, Arturo Eleazar Diaz, remains on
death row and contends his case was never really reviewed because
Alexander's actions undermined the appeal.
Alexander concedes it wasn't the best brief and says it was his 2nd habeas
case. "I was learning," he said.
"It wasn't like I just neglected it or whatever," he added. "I had reasons
for what I did. I think my reasoning was sound."
The arguments Alexander made are the last Texas courts will likely hear
about Diaz. They have become part of the case's record.
Traditional safeguards to catch shoddy legal work don't always check this
area of law, experts say.
The State Bar doesn't necessarily discipline attorneys who file worthless
paperwork and leaves that to malpractice lawsuits.
The Court of Criminal Appeals decides which attorneys can work habeas
appointments. But it doesn't ensure the lawyers meet the credentials.
"We don't have any watchdog organization that checks for quality control"
in capital habeas cases, said Catharine G. Burnett, a South Texas College
of Law professor and a member of the committee that complained about
Alexander.
Texas started providing habeas lawyers for death row inmates in 1995.
Seven years later, the Texas Defender Service, a nonprofit monitor of
capital cases, checked nearly all the 263 habeas applications paid for by
Texas. The nonprofit found nearly 40 percent had fatal technical flaws and
provided courts with nothing to consider.
"Nothing has improved" since the study, said Andrea Keilen, director of
the Defender Service.
(source: Associated Press)
Texas allows inadequate legal work in the final stages of death penalty
cases and provides minimal oversight for attorneys who handle the life or
death claims, judges and advocates contend.
"It's a problem. It needs to be addressed," said Judge Cheryl Johnson, a
Republican on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. "But I don't think
there are any easy solutions to it."
Writs of habeas corpus are the court challenges meant to ensure no one
unfairly convicted is executed. Habeas attorneys are supposed to find any
misconduct or mistakes made by the defendant's trial lawyers,
investigators, prosecutors, judges and jurors in the case.
But if a state habeas attorney doesn't find or address a detail, the
inmate may never get another chance to raise it.
Activists say there are several examples in Texas of faulty work in writs
of habeas corpus, the San Antonio Express-New reported in Sunday editions.
In one case, an attorney working on a death row inmate's final state
appeal filed an incomplete and vague petition with at least one error. The
work by attorney Mark Alexander, of McAllen, elicited a 606-page response
from the judge.
"Applicant totally misinterprets what actually occurred in this case,"
State District Judge Noe Gonzalez of Edinburg wrote about one of the
attorney's claims.
A committee of attorneys and citizens formally complained about Alexander
to the State Bar of Texas. But the agency dismissed the grievance against
him.
Alexander remains on a state list of 136 lawyers who can be appointed to
challenge convictions. His former client, Arturo Eleazar Diaz, remains on
death row and contends his case was never really reviewed because
Alexander's actions undermined the appeal.
Alexander concedes it wasn't the best brief and says it was his 2nd habeas
case. "I was learning," he said.
"It wasn't like I just neglected it or whatever," he added. "I had reasons
for what I did. I think my reasoning was sound."
The arguments Alexander made are the last Texas courts will likely hear
about Diaz. They have become part of the case's record.
Traditional safeguards to catch shoddy legal work don't always check this
area of law, experts say.
The State Bar doesn't necessarily discipline attorneys who file worthless
paperwork and leaves that to malpractice lawsuits.
The Court of Criminal Appeals decides which attorneys can work habeas
appointments. But it doesn't ensure the lawyers meet the credentials.
"We don't have any watchdog organization that checks for quality control"
in capital habeas cases, said Catharine G. Burnett, a South Texas College
of Law professor and a member of the committee that complained about
Alexander.
Texas started providing habeas lawyers for death row inmates in 1995.
Seven years later, the Texas Defender Service, a nonprofit monitor of
capital cases, checked nearly all the 263 habeas applications paid for by
Texas. The nonprofit found nearly 40 percent had fatal technical flaws and
provided courts with nothing to consider.
"Nothing has improved" since the study, said Andrea Keilen, director of
the Defender Service.
(source: Associated Press)