Later On

A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine.

Texas believes in revenge, not in justice

leave a comment »

Dahlia Lithwick writes at Slate:

One of the sad truths of the capital defense business is that some trial lawyers who show up to defend their clients have been known to sleep through their trials, fail to interview witnesses, or are too drunk to do their jobs. And yet reviewing courts almost invariably determine that such lawyers provided perfectly competent defense. As one Texas judge put it in the face of such allegations: “The Constitution does not require perfection in trial representation.” So, for instance, judges in Houston continued to appoint lawyer Jerome Godinich to represent capital defendants even as he missed one filing deadline after another, depriving his clients of crucial judicial review. That there is really no such thing as an ineffective lawyer is one of the cardinal rules of the death penalty machine. But dare to be an effective one? Well, that’s another story.

David Dow is one of the best-known capital defense attorneys in America today. Over his 20-year career, he has represented more than 100 people who had been sentenced to die. What he does truly matters. He was on the team representingAnthony Graves, exonerated in 2010 after serving 18 years in prison, most of them on Texas’ death row. Dow was litigation director at the Texas Defender Service and founder and co-director of the Texas Innocence Network—an organization that supervises law students working pro bono on claims of actual innocence. He teaches at the University of Houston Law Center. Dow, who is an acquaintance (I reviewed one of his books and blurbed another) has published and spoken out widely and passionately about the death penalty, particularly as it’s practiced in Texas—which happens to be the death-penaltiest state in America, by rather a large margin.

Dow is now in trouble because he filed a late petition. In October of 2014, Dow may or may not have missed a filing deadline in an appeal before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals—the state’s highest criminal appeals court—on behalf of his client Miguel Paredes, sentenced for the triple murder of members of a rival street gang. Dow had come very late to the case and, with the execution scheduled, he discovered that Paredes’ trial lawyer had called no witnesses in this capital case, and he sought to file a petition with the court. Paredes was executed a few days later.

I say he “may or may not” have missed a deadline because one of the judges looking at Dow’s conduct in that case has written that “Dow’s pleadings were arguably timely filed,” and because, if his filing was indeed late, it was late by a matter of either 30 minutes or a few hours, depending on who’s counting.

But in 2009, Dow was also late with a filing before the CCA. So on Jan. 14 of this year, the CCA determined that Dow’s tardiness last fall was such an egregious piece of lawyerly misconduct that it warranted a contempt order. The court fashioned a new punishment and suspended him from practicing before the CCA for 12 months. (Alternative sanctions suggested by the more lenient judge on the panel included home confinement and electronic monitoring.) In other words, one of Texas’ leading death penalty lawyers has been benched for a year for maybe missing a deadline. One wonders what the sanction might be for using the incorrect font.

Where did the CCA’s draconian new filing rules come from? Dow could tell you.

Back in 2007 his office was scrambling to file pleadings in the case of a convicted killer by the name of Michael Richard. That morning the U.S. Supreme Court had agreed to hear a challenge about the constitutionality of lethal injection—the form of execution administered by Texas—and Dow’s team sought to stay Richard’s execution while the court considered the case. As members of Richard’s defense team on the Texas Defender Service later explained, their computers crashed and they asked that the court stay open 20 minutes late so they could deliver the pleading. The court’s presiding judge, Sharon Keller, who’d gone home to deal with a repairman,answered: “We close at 5.” Richard was later executed.

A complaint was filed against Keller, and a special master was appointed by the Texas Supreme Court to investigate. The special master eventually determined that Keller’s action was “not exemplary of a public servant,” but allowed her to keep her seat. . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

17 March 2015 at 2:09 pm

Posted in Government, Law

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.