In the current term of the United States Supreme Court Holly Wood is the fifth capital defendant to challenge his death sentence on the ground that he had the ineffective assistance of counsel. Only one succeeded - George Porter, a multiple murderer whom the Justices spared because he had the misfortune (30 years before he killed), as an already deeply disturbed young man, to be engaged in heavy combat during the Korean War.
Holly Wood, a murderer who exhibits "significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning", failed in his claim. In the Wood v. Allen majority opinion authored by Sonia Sotomayor [over the dissent of Justice John Paul Stevens (Kennedy joining)] the Court declared that
Reviewing all of the evidence, we agree with the State [of Alabama] that even if it is debatable, it is not unreasonable to conclude that, after reviewing the Kirkland report, counsel made a strategic decision not to inquire further into the information contained in the report about Wood’s mental deficiencies and not to present to the jury such information as counsel already possessed about these deficiencies.Like the other three aggravated murderers whom the Supreme Court did not spare this term Wood was represented by a lawyer whose skills and judgment left much to be desired. But since the court found the representation met the constitutional minimum the death sentences stand.
Justice Stevens, however, concluded
"There is a world of difference between a decision not to introduce evidence at the guilt phase of a trial and a failure to investigate mitigating evidence that might be admissible at the penalty phase… the only reasonable factual conclusion I can draw from this record is that counsel’s decision to do so was the result of inattention and neglect."
I cannot but note the contrast between these defendants and those in New Jersey who were represented by the statewide Office of the Public Defender, none of whose clients was executed, in the twenty five years between the 1982 restoration of capital punishment and its 2007 legislative repeal.
The Public Defender's efforts were matched by the New Jersey Supreme Court, which believed death is different and afforded capital defendants what Associate Justice Alan Handler called "super due process". I asked in my introductory essay to the symposium which examined the repeal if New Jersey would be a Herald of Change. Thus far the United States Supreme Court has not heard the trumpet's call.
The complete file on the Wood case on Scotus Wiki can be found HERE.
George,
ReplyDeleteSometimes it’s good to read your junk mail. I found your recent missives and immediately consigned to my Inbox, safe and sound. Thanks for remembering me.
I read your article about recent Supreme Court decisions on the death penalty. I still strongly believe that the death penalty is warranted for a limited number of crimes. The problem is with the courts.
Logically, there are at least two valid reasons for the imposition of the death penalty; justice and deterrence. Those that oppose the death penalty argue that it is neither just nor a deterrent. The term “just” has been given numerous, diverse and frequently inconsistent meanings ranging from “vengeance” to exclusively the right of God, the latter being adopted by such diverse persons as priests, atheists and agnostics.
In my opinion, “just” embodies at least two concepts: the right of the victim and the victims survivors to the public affirmation of the dignity and value of innocent life. The second is deterrence.
Vengeance embodies the concept of inflicting suffering equivalent to the wrong – an eye for an eye - which would sanction the imposition of death by the same brutal means as innocent life was taken. Vengeance is always private, never public for the public, albeit shocked by a crime cannot feel the pain of the victims. A death sentence is a public penalty imposed as a public affirmation of the dignity and worth of the innocent life taken – an act necessary to affirm that worth, life itself. . Inevitably, the victims are moved to vengeance but the death penalty is not a private right but a public right to affirm society’s value placed on the innocent life taken.
Our Church has only recently adopted the rubric that all life is sacrosanct even that of the most vile killers who have inflicted unspeakable pain and suffering on others – the murdered as well as the survivors. In my opinion, this recent opposition to the death penalty is theologically unsound. I reserve the right to expand my position for the record.
Deterrence perhaps is the weakest argument of the Opposers. It is the courts, beleaguered by Opposers of the penalty itself, who have destroyed deterrence. To be a deterrent, the death penalty must both timely and objectively certain. The courts have made both impossible. Deterrence is based on fear of death. That death must be reasonably imminent to create fear. We all face death in time but few fear death in 15 or 20 years no matter how certain. Facing death in 5 years or less is quite another thing.
Nothing could be more uncertain than either the imposition or execution of the death penalty. There are virtually no objective standards by direction of the courts at the insistence of Opposers. Each case must involve innumerable individualized factors in aggravation and mitigation. By nature, no two accused have the same prior life . There are no objective standards as guidelines, only the individual and his (her) history to come before the court.
The New Jersey Supreme Court conducted studies to uncover bias from the vicissitudes of imposition of the death penalty resulting from such individualization of the process. The studies failed to support bias.
The European, secular model of criminal trial and punishment has failed. From the earliest days of “rehabilitation” to its near abandonment and the creation of Devils Island, to the present exchange of a few years in jail for the worst of murderers, the system has abandoned protection of society for the avoidance of an unpleasant necessity arising from reality. European statistics are suspect, crimes go unreported because the system is unresponsive. With increasing numbers of persons raised in violent societies to terrorists determined to destroy freedom by death, Europe must and will again face resurrection of the death penalty.
Incidentally, you will recall that my wife’s mother was murdered in LA many years ago. Recently, LA authorities arrested a 70 yr old man who we believe was the murderer – he has murdered over 20 people.
Best regards,
John