|
|
| Supreme Court Unbending on Death Row Appeals |
| By Associated Press |
| Published: 06/10/2002 |
|
Indications that the Supreme Court might crack down on substandard death row lawyers fizzled recently when the court settled another inmate complaint with a familiar ruling: The lawyering wasn't all that bad. Away from court, two justices have discussed concerns about poor legal representation in death row cases. But those worries so far have not played out in the court's rule-making. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said last year that it may be time to require minimum standards for lawyers. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that among all the inmates who have asked the court for last-minute reprieves, she has never seen one who got really good legal help at trial. The two justices joined the court's 8-1 decision May 28 against a convicted double murderer who claimed his mentally ill lawyer did next to nothing to save him from a death sentence. Gary Bradford Cone's case was one of two ineffective-counsel death row cases considered by justices this term. The court came down on the side of prosecutors in both. Cone was convicted of bludgeoning to death an elderly couple in Memphis, Tenn., during a robbery in 1980. His lawyer, John Dice, offered little argument that he shouldn't be put to death. Dice 'was faced with the formidable task of defending a client who had committed a horribly brutal and senseless crime against two elderly persons in their home,' Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote in the decision. The court's ruling, although narrow, will probably make it harder for death row inmates to claim they deserve a break during the appeals process because of poor legal help they received during their trials. The court ruled that Cone's complaints about his lawyer are not enough to justify an exception to federal rules intended to streamline appeals that can stretch decades. The Supreme Court chose Cone's case over several others that make similar claims, including the much better-known case of a Texas inmate whose lawyer allegedly slept through much of his trial. The court is expected to rule in the Texas case based on its answer in Cone. Cone claimed drugs and the stress of his experiences in Vietnam led to the crimes, and that he was temporarily insane during a crime spree that included shooting a police officer. Only Justice John Paul Stevens agreed with Cone's new lawyers. The majority was too quick to give Dice the benefit of the doubt, when there is evidence both of Dice's mental illness and poor choice of tactics, Stevens wrote. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that Cone's lawyer's performance was bad enough to merit an exception to a 1996 law intended to shorten death row appeals, and threw out his death sentence. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court ruling. The case is Bell v. Cone, 01-400. |
advertise
|
privacy policy
|
add URL
|
about us
|
terms/disclaimer
|
contact us
|
join our team
|
help
Comments:
No comments have been posted for this article.
Login to let us know what you think