Joy
05-17-2002, 08:27 PM
Attorneys for three Texas death row inmates filed a federal lawsuit
today against the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, accusing the court of
violating the constitutional rights of condemned killers by appointing
incompetent lawyers to handle the prisoners' appeals.
The suit, in U.S. District Court in Corpus Christi, seeks to halt the
executions of the three men named as plaintiffs in the action until the
case is resolved and requests a permanent injunction ordering
appointment of competent lawyers to represent all death row inmates.
"They're not enforcing the legislative mandate that these guys are
supposed to get competent counsel," said Jim Marcus of the Texas
Defender Service, one of the attorneys who filed the suit. "This is a
widespread issue. Efforts have been made to enforce these rights in
every possible other way and the court's been unresponsive so far."
Marcus represents Gary Etheridge, one of three inmates named as
plaintiffs in the suit. Others are Johnny Joe Martinez and Napoleon
Beazley. All three convicted murderers are facing execution soon.
Martinez is set to die next Wednesday for killing a Corpus Christi
convenience store clerk. Beazley is scheduled for execution May 28 for
killing a Tyler man -- the father of a federal appeals court judge --
during a carjacking. Etheridge is facing lethal injection June 27 for
fatally stabbing a Brazoria County girl.
In January, the Court of Criminal Appeals, state's highest criminal
court, ruled death row inmates deserve a qualified appointed lawyer but
not necessarily one who performs effectively.
"There is no constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel on
a writ of habeas corpus," Judge Cathy Cochran wrote in the majority
opinion.
The decision, in a 6-3 vote, narrowed the ability of death row
defendants to object to their sentences and convictions on the basis of
an attorney's performance at the state habeas level.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Tom Price, joined by Judge Charles R.
Holcomb, wrote that competent counsel "ought to require more than a
human being with a law license and a pulse."
"State habeas is the only place where people can bring in new evidence,
where you can litigate claims of innocence and prosecutorial misconduct
and ineffective assistance of counsel," Marcus said. "These are all
crucial fundamental rights.
"Prisoners on Texas' death row are not being afforded their rights
because of the (criminal appeals court's) policy and inaction."
Under a 1995 statute passed by the Legislature, the state is required to
provide a lawyer to defendants sentenced to death. At one time, the
Court of Criminal Appeals appointed habeas lawyers under the statute.
After criticism of the quality of those appointments, however, the
selection process became the responsibility of trial judges, although
they still must select from the appellate court's list.
The suit names all nine appeals court justices. Also named as
co-defendant is the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, which carries
out lethal injections.
"We did receive a copy of that lawsuit this morning and because it is
now pending litigation we wouldn't have any further comment," said Jane
Shepperd, a spokeswoman for the Texas attorney general's office.
In Martinez's case, the suit said his court-appointed attorney ignored
his clients and filed an appeal that "contains nothing that one would
expect an experienced death penalty lawyer to include" and then was not
allowed by the court to withdraw from the case so Martinez could get a
better attorney.
The suit cited similar allegations of lawyer inexperience or
incompetence in the cases of Etheridge and Beazley.
"These cases represent only the tip of the iceberg," the suit said. "The
Court of Criminal Appeals is frequently confronted with stark evidence
that the attorneys it has appointed in other state habeas cases are
failing to perform basic and necessary tasks, yet the court stubbornly
refuses to intervene to correct the situation."
Source: Houston Chronicle at
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/metropolitan/1416245
today against the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, accusing the court of
violating the constitutional rights of condemned killers by appointing
incompetent lawyers to handle the prisoners' appeals.
The suit, in U.S. District Court in Corpus Christi, seeks to halt the
executions of the three men named as plaintiffs in the action until the
case is resolved and requests a permanent injunction ordering
appointment of competent lawyers to represent all death row inmates.
"They're not enforcing the legislative mandate that these guys are
supposed to get competent counsel," said Jim Marcus of the Texas
Defender Service, one of the attorneys who filed the suit. "This is a
widespread issue. Efforts have been made to enforce these rights in
every possible other way and the court's been unresponsive so far."
Marcus represents Gary Etheridge, one of three inmates named as
plaintiffs in the suit. Others are Johnny Joe Martinez and Napoleon
Beazley. All three convicted murderers are facing execution soon.
Martinez is set to die next Wednesday for killing a Corpus Christi
convenience store clerk. Beazley is scheduled for execution May 28 for
killing a Tyler man -- the father of a federal appeals court judge --
during a carjacking. Etheridge is facing lethal injection June 27 for
fatally stabbing a Brazoria County girl.
In January, the Court of Criminal Appeals, state's highest criminal
court, ruled death row inmates deserve a qualified appointed lawyer but
not necessarily one who performs effectively.
"There is no constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel on
a writ of habeas corpus," Judge Cathy Cochran wrote in the majority
opinion.
The decision, in a 6-3 vote, narrowed the ability of death row
defendants to object to their sentences and convictions on the basis of
an attorney's performance at the state habeas level.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Tom Price, joined by Judge Charles R.
Holcomb, wrote that competent counsel "ought to require more than a
human being with a law license and a pulse."
"State habeas is the only place where people can bring in new evidence,
where you can litigate claims of innocence and prosecutorial misconduct
and ineffective assistance of counsel," Marcus said. "These are all
crucial fundamental rights.
"Prisoners on Texas' death row are not being afforded their rights
because of the (criminal appeals court's) policy and inaction."
Under a 1995 statute passed by the Legislature, the state is required to
provide a lawyer to defendants sentenced to death. At one time, the
Court of Criminal Appeals appointed habeas lawyers under the statute.
After criticism of the quality of those appointments, however, the
selection process became the responsibility of trial judges, although
they still must select from the appellate court's list.
The suit names all nine appeals court justices. Also named as
co-defendant is the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, which carries
out lethal injections.
"We did receive a copy of that lawsuit this morning and because it is
now pending litigation we wouldn't have any further comment," said Jane
Shepperd, a spokeswoman for the Texas attorney general's office.
In Martinez's case, the suit said his court-appointed attorney ignored
his clients and filed an appeal that "contains nothing that one would
expect an experienced death penalty lawyer to include" and then was not
allowed by the court to withdraw from the case so Martinez could get a
better attorney.
The suit cited similar allegations of lawyer inexperience or
incompetence in the cases of Etheridge and Beazley.
"These cases represent only the tip of the iceberg," the suit said. "The
Court of Criminal Appeals is frequently confronted with stark evidence
that the attorneys it has appointed in other state habeas cases are
failing to perform basic and necessary tasks, yet the court stubbornly
refuses to intervene to correct the situation."
Source: Houston Chronicle at
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/metropolitan/1416245