The Justice Project
One of the most important factors in determining whether a defendant will receive the death penalty is the quality of his or her representation. Most defendants charged with capital crimes cannot afford their own attorneys. And all too often, appointed attorneys are so drastically overworked and underpaid that they cannot provide competent and diligent representation, especially given the special nature of death penalty cases. Instances of inadequate legal representation range from attorneys lacking experience or resources to attorneys under the influence of alcohol or drugs in the courtroom. In some cases, appointed attorneys have actually slept through parts of the trial, or come virtually unprepared for the sentencing phase.
Defense attorneys lacking resources and experience often fail to investigate cases thoroughly, fail to present compelling or mitigating evidence, and fail to call witnesses that would aid in the defense. In addition, monumental caseloads, caps on fees for public defenders, and a severe lack of resources for investigation and expert assistance create a situation in which appointed attorneys are simply unable to fulfill their obligations to their clients and the court.
The right to an attorney is the most basic tenet of the American judicial system -- centered on the ideal that every man, rich or poor, stands equal before the law. In death penalty cases, it is absolutely essential that the attorney be experienced in capital cases, be adequately compensated, and have access to the resources needed to provide competent and diligent representation.
In 2003, the American Bar Association developed specific guidelines for the appointment and performance of lawyers in death penalty cases, which the US Supreme Court has cited as an appropriate performance standard for defense counsel in capital cases. These guidelines, termed the ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Capital Cases (pdf), are essentially the gold standard for implementing effective systems of capital representation. No state has fully implemented the guidelines to date.
Louisiana is perhaps the best example of why standards are necessary to protect those most in need of the system's resources, and those least able to advocate for themselves.
As reported in our April newsletter, the devastation brought on by Hurricane Katrina highlighted just how crippled the system for providing adequate counsel to indigent defendants in the state remains -- both before Katrina, and even more so today. The extent of the crisis became even more apparent this past week, when six public defenders in the Orleans Indigent Defender Program quit following a decision by the program's trial chief to require public defenders to work full time and relinquish their potentially higher paying private practices on the side. In an area where nearly 80 percent of criminal defendants depend on public defenders, many poor people accused of crimes, some of whom could face the death penalty, continue to be left without lawyers to represent them as the number of public defenders dwindles.
Last March, as a result of an investigation into the New Orleans indigent defense crisis, the Southern Center for Human Rights (SCHR) released a report exposing the severe deficiencies in the system. In a corresponding press release, SCHR noted, "More than six months after Katrina, a majority of those men and women remain behind bars, where they have languished on average for over a year without any communication with a defense attorney. There is an urgent need to immediately staff and mobilize an indigent defense system that can effectively and ethically represent the thousands of individuals who are currently facing their criminal charges without assistance of counsel."
Even before Katrina, the state's indigent defense system was abysmal -- people languished in prison for months without seeing a lawyer, and the level of representation eventually provided was often substandard. The Orleans Indigent Defender Program was also the subject of many critiques prior to Katrina -- reports on the program found that lawyers often did not investigate their cases or interview their clients. Moreover, systemic flaws in the system extend across the state –- not just New Orleans –- leaving poor defendants without the competent and diligent representation guaranteed by the constitution.
Due to the switch to public defenders who work full-time at higher salaries, the revamped Orleans Indigent Defender Program will hire and train new lawyers. There are currently 26 lawyers on staff, with a total of 60 cited as the number necessary to keep up with recent caseload standards. The office is currently not funded at a level to meet its hiring needs, yet the change to full-time attorneys has been the suggestion of all the independent reviews of indigent-defense services across Louisiana.
The aftermath of Katrina provides an excellent opportunity to reform the system -- both in terms of financing and independent oversight. Fulfilling constitutional obligations to people who are underserved should be a top priority for policymakers and the public at large.
One of the most important factors in determining whether a defendant will receive the death penalty is the quality of his or her representation. Most defendants charged with capital crimes cannot afford their own attorneys. And all too often, appointed attorneys are so drastically overworked and underpaid that they cannot provide competent and diligent representation, especially given the special nature of death penalty cases. Instances of inadequate legal representation range from attorneys lacking experience or resources to attorneys under the influence of alcohol or drugs in the courtroom. In some cases, appointed attorneys have actually slept through parts of the trial, or come virtually unprepared for the sentencing phase.
Defense attorneys lacking resources and experience often fail to investigate cases thoroughly, fail to present compelling or mitigating evidence, and fail to call witnesses that would aid in the defense. In addition, monumental caseloads, caps on fees for public defenders, and a severe lack of resources for investigation and expert assistance create a situation in which appointed attorneys are simply unable to fulfill their obligations to their clients and the court.
The right to an attorney is the most basic tenet of the American judicial system -- centered on the ideal that every man, rich or poor, stands equal before the law. In death penalty cases, it is absolutely essential that the attorney be experienced in capital cases, be adequately compensated, and have access to the resources needed to provide competent and diligent representation.
In 2003, the American Bar Association developed specific guidelines for the appointment and performance of lawyers in death penalty cases, which the US Supreme Court has cited as an appropriate performance standard for defense counsel in capital cases. These guidelines, termed the ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Capital Cases (pdf), are essentially the gold standard for implementing effective systems of capital representation. No state has fully implemented the guidelines to date.
Louisiana is perhaps the best example of why standards are necessary to protect those most in need of the system's resources, and those least able to advocate for themselves.
As reported in our April newsletter, the devastation brought on by Hurricane Katrina highlighted just how crippled the system for providing adequate counsel to indigent defendants in the state remains -- both before Katrina, and even more so today. The extent of the crisis became even more apparent this past week, when six public defenders in the Orleans Indigent Defender Program quit following a decision by the program's trial chief to require public defenders to work full time and relinquish their potentially higher paying private practices on the side. In an area where nearly 80 percent of criminal defendants depend on public defenders, many poor people accused of crimes, some of whom could face the death penalty, continue to be left without lawyers to represent them as the number of public defenders dwindles.
Last March, as a result of an investigation into the New Orleans indigent defense crisis, the Southern Center for Human Rights (SCHR) released a report exposing the severe deficiencies in the system. In a corresponding press release, SCHR noted, "More than six months after Katrina, a majority of those men and women remain behind bars, where they have languished on average for over a year without any communication with a defense attorney. There is an urgent need to immediately staff and mobilize an indigent defense system that can effectively and ethically represent the thousands of individuals who are currently facing their criminal charges without assistance of counsel."
Even before Katrina, the state's indigent defense system was abysmal -- people languished in prison for months without seeing a lawyer, and the level of representation eventually provided was often substandard. The Orleans Indigent Defender Program was also the subject of many critiques prior to Katrina -- reports on the program found that lawyers often did not investigate their cases or interview their clients. Moreover, systemic flaws in the system extend across the state –- not just New Orleans –- leaving poor defendants without the competent and diligent representation guaranteed by the constitution.
Due to the switch to public defenders who work full-time at higher salaries, the revamped Orleans Indigent Defender Program will hire and train new lawyers. There are currently 26 lawyers on staff, with a total of 60 cited as the number necessary to keep up with recent caseload standards. The office is currently not funded at a level to meet its hiring needs, yet the change to full-time attorneys has been the suggestion of all the independent reviews of indigent-defense services across Louisiana.
The aftermath of Katrina provides an excellent opportunity to reform the system -- both in terms of financing and independent oversight. Fulfilling constitutional obligations to people who are underserved should be a top priority for policymakers and the public at large.
technorati tags: Death+Penalty, Capital+Punishment, Louisiana
0 Comments: