Goody's Girl
05-29-2002, 01:11 PM
Is it just me or does anyone else think this was wrong? This man should not have had the same attorney that the victim had in this case.
URGENT ACTION APPEAL
29 May 2002
EXTRA 41/02 Death penalty / Legal concern
USA (Virginia): Walter Mickens
Walter Mickens (m), black, aged 47, is scheduled to be executed in
Virginia at 9pm local time on 12 June 2002. He was sentenced to
death in 1993 for the murder of 17-year-old Timothy Hall. The case
against Mickens was circumstantial.
Timothy Hall's body was discovered on 30 March 1992. At the time of
his death, he was facing weapons and assault charges. On 3 April
1992 the judge dismissed the charges because of Hall's death. On 6
April, the next working day, the same judge appointed the lawyer who
had been representing Hall to represent Walter Mickens. Neither the
judge nor the lawyer disclosed to Mickens that he was being
defended by the lawyer of the murder victim.
This matter remained undisclosed until it was discovered years later
by Walter Mickens's appeal lawyer. However, the conviction and
death sentence have been allowed to stand. Most recently, the US
Supreme Court voted 5-4 against Mickens, holding that in such a
case the defendant must prove that the conflict of interest adversely
affected the lawyer's performance.
Amnesty International considers that Walter Mickens was sentenced
to death after proceedings which failed to scrupulously protect his
rights under international fair trial standards. As such, his execution
would amount to an arbitrary deprivation of life in violation of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (see below).
The four Supreme Court justices who dissented did so in no uncertain
terms. Justice Souter said that Mickens must get a new trial, while
Justices Breyer and Ginsburg said that in a case such as this,
'automatic reversal [and a new trial] is required.' Justice Stevens
described the defence lawyer's concealment of his prior
representation of Hall as 'indefensible' and 'a severe lapse of his
professional duty'. He continued: 'Mickens had a constitutional right to
the services of an attorney devoted solely to his interests. That right
was violated. The lawyer who did represent him had a duty to
disclose his prior representation of the victim to Mickens and to the
trial judge. That duty was violated. When Mickens had no counsel,
the trial judge had a duty to make a thorough inquiry and to take all
steps necessary to insure the fullest protection of his right to counsel.
Despite knowledge of the lawyer's prior representation, she violated
that duty. We will never know whether Mickens would have received
the death penalty if those violations had not occurred nor precisely
what effect they had on [the lawyer's] representation of Mickens.'
Justice Stevens added that 'justice must satisfy the appearance of
justice. Setting aside Mickens's conviction is the only remedy that can
maintain public confidence in the fairness of the procedures
employed in capital cases... A rule that allows the State to foist a
murder victim's lawyer onto his accused is not only capricious; it
poisons the integrity of our adversary system of justice'.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),
which the USA ratified in 1992, guarantees defendants the right to be
represented by a lawyer of their choosing (Article 14.3.d). The state
must provide a lawyer for those who cannot afford to pay for one.
This particular provision does not expressly guarantee an absolute
right of choice. However, the UN Human Rights Committee, which is
the body established by the ICCPR to monitor the treaty's
implementation, has said that 'legal assistance to the accused in a
capital case must be provided in ways that adequately and effectively
ensure justice'. In that decision, involving a death penalty case in
which the defendant had a well-founded reason not to want the
appointed lawyer to continue to represent him, the Committee said
that the accused should have been allowed to choose another lawyer,
even if it required adjournment of proceedings (Pinto v Trinidad,
1990).
Walter Mickens should have been informed that his lawyer had
represented the murder victim, and thereby been given the
opportunity to insist upon different representation if he so chose. In
effect, Walter Mickens was discriminated against on the grounds of
his economic status. Because he could not afford his own counsel,
the state appointed one. It did so without ensuring that the lawyer it
appointed was not labouring under a conflict of interest, or ensuring
that Mickens knew of any such potential conflict. Such discrimination
violated Walter Mickens's right to be 'equal before the courts and
tribunals', as well as undermining his right to defence, both protected
under Article 14 of the ICCPR.
Article 6 of the ICCPR covers the right to life. While recognizing that
some countries still retain the death penalty, it imposes strict
safeguards on its use, including that: 'No one shall be arbitrarily
deprived of his life' (Article 6.1). The Human Rights Committee holds
that 'as article 6 of the Covenant is non-derogable in its entirety, any
trial leading to the imposition of the death penalty [even] during a
state of emergency must conform to the provisions of the Covenant,
including all the requirements of articles 14...'. The carrying out of a
death sentence which was the result of an unfair trial amounts to an
arbitrary deprivation of life in violation of article 6(1).
Every state bar in the USA has an ethical rule prohibiting a lawyer
from undertaking a representation that involves a conflict of interest
unless the client has waived the conflict. Walter Mickens's lawyer's
failure to reveal his representation of Timothy Hall clearly breached
professional ethics and contravened the UN Basic Principles on the
Role of Lawyers, which states that 'in protecting the rights of their
clients and promoting the cause of justice' they shall 'at all times
act...in accordance with the law and recognized standards and ethics
of the legal profession'.
The USA has executed 779 prisoners since resuming judicial killing in
1977. Eighty-five of these executions occurred in Virginia, second
only to Texas.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please send appeals to arrive as quickly
as possible, in your own words:
- expressing sympathy for the family of Timothy Hall, and explaining
that you do not seek to condone his murder or the suffering it will
have caused;
- expressing deep concern that Walter Mickens was not informed that
his court-appointed lawyer had represented Hall, a clear violation of
ethics;
- noting that this failure breached international fair trial rights, and that
his execution will therefore violate international law;
- noting that a failure to stop this execution can only damage public
confidence in the US criminal justice system;
- calling on the governor to stop Walter Mickens's execution.
APPEALS TO:
Governor Mark R. Warner
State Capitol, 3rd Floor
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Fax: 1 804 371 6351
E-mail (via website):
www.governor.state.va.us/Contact/email'form.html
Salutation: Dear Governor
You may write a brief letter (not more than 250 words) to:
Letters to the Editor
Richmond Times-Dispatch
PO Box 85333
Richmond, Virginia 23293
Fax: 1 804 819 1216
E-mail: letters@timesdispatch.com
PLEASE SEND APPEALS IMMEDIATELY.
Amnesty International is a worldwide grassroots movement
that promotes and defends human rights.
Urgent Action Network
Amnesty International USA
PO Box 1270
Nederland CO 80466-1270
Email: uan@aiusa.org
http://www.amnestyusa.org/urgent/
Phone: 303 258 1170
Fax: 303 258 7881
URGENT ACTION APPEAL
29 May 2002
EXTRA 41/02 Death penalty / Legal concern
USA (Virginia): Walter Mickens
Walter Mickens (m), black, aged 47, is scheduled to be executed in
Virginia at 9pm local time on 12 June 2002. He was sentenced to
death in 1993 for the murder of 17-year-old Timothy Hall. The case
against Mickens was circumstantial.
Timothy Hall's body was discovered on 30 March 1992. At the time of
his death, he was facing weapons and assault charges. On 3 April
1992 the judge dismissed the charges because of Hall's death. On 6
April, the next working day, the same judge appointed the lawyer who
had been representing Hall to represent Walter Mickens. Neither the
judge nor the lawyer disclosed to Mickens that he was being
defended by the lawyer of the murder victim.
This matter remained undisclosed until it was discovered years later
by Walter Mickens's appeal lawyer. However, the conviction and
death sentence have been allowed to stand. Most recently, the US
Supreme Court voted 5-4 against Mickens, holding that in such a
case the defendant must prove that the conflict of interest adversely
affected the lawyer's performance.
Amnesty International considers that Walter Mickens was sentenced
to death after proceedings which failed to scrupulously protect his
rights under international fair trial standards. As such, his execution
would amount to an arbitrary deprivation of life in violation of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (see below).
The four Supreme Court justices who dissented did so in no uncertain
terms. Justice Souter said that Mickens must get a new trial, while
Justices Breyer and Ginsburg said that in a case such as this,
'automatic reversal [and a new trial] is required.' Justice Stevens
described the defence lawyer's concealment of his prior
representation of Hall as 'indefensible' and 'a severe lapse of his
professional duty'. He continued: 'Mickens had a constitutional right to
the services of an attorney devoted solely to his interests. That right
was violated. The lawyer who did represent him had a duty to
disclose his prior representation of the victim to Mickens and to the
trial judge. That duty was violated. When Mickens had no counsel,
the trial judge had a duty to make a thorough inquiry and to take all
steps necessary to insure the fullest protection of his right to counsel.
Despite knowledge of the lawyer's prior representation, she violated
that duty. We will never know whether Mickens would have received
the death penalty if those violations had not occurred nor precisely
what effect they had on [the lawyer's] representation of Mickens.'
Justice Stevens added that 'justice must satisfy the appearance of
justice. Setting aside Mickens's conviction is the only remedy that can
maintain public confidence in the fairness of the procedures
employed in capital cases... A rule that allows the State to foist a
murder victim's lawyer onto his accused is not only capricious; it
poisons the integrity of our adversary system of justice'.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),
which the USA ratified in 1992, guarantees defendants the right to be
represented by a lawyer of their choosing (Article 14.3.d). The state
must provide a lawyer for those who cannot afford to pay for one.
This particular provision does not expressly guarantee an absolute
right of choice. However, the UN Human Rights Committee, which is
the body established by the ICCPR to monitor the treaty's
implementation, has said that 'legal assistance to the accused in a
capital case must be provided in ways that adequately and effectively
ensure justice'. In that decision, involving a death penalty case in
which the defendant had a well-founded reason not to want the
appointed lawyer to continue to represent him, the Committee said
that the accused should have been allowed to choose another lawyer,
even if it required adjournment of proceedings (Pinto v Trinidad,
1990).
Walter Mickens should have been informed that his lawyer had
represented the murder victim, and thereby been given the
opportunity to insist upon different representation if he so chose. In
effect, Walter Mickens was discriminated against on the grounds of
his economic status. Because he could not afford his own counsel,
the state appointed one. It did so without ensuring that the lawyer it
appointed was not labouring under a conflict of interest, or ensuring
that Mickens knew of any such potential conflict. Such discrimination
violated Walter Mickens's right to be 'equal before the courts and
tribunals', as well as undermining his right to defence, both protected
under Article 14 of the ICCPR.
Article 6 of the ICCPR covers the right to life. While recognizing that
some countries still retain the death penalty, it imposes strict
safeguards on its use, including that: 'No one shall be arbitrarily
deprived of his life' (Article 6.1). The Human Rights Committee holds
that 'as article 6 of the Covenant is non-derogable in its entirety, any
trial leading to the imposition of the death penalty [even] during a
state of emergency must conform to the provisions of the Covenant,
including all the requirements of articles 14...'. The carrying out of a
death sentence which was the result of an unfair trial amounts to an
arbitrary deprivation of life in violation of article 6(1).
Every state bar in the USA has an ethical rule prohibiting a lawyer
from undertaking a representation that involves a conflict of interest
unless the client has waived the conflict. Walter Mickens's lawyer's
failure to reveal his representation of Timothy Hall clearly breached
professional ethics and contravened the UN Basic Principles on the
Role of Lawyers, which states that 'in protecting the rights of their
clients and promoting the cause of justice' they shall 'at all times
act...in accordance with the law and recognized standards and ethics
of the legal profession'.
The USA has executed 779 prisoners since resuming judicial killing in
1977. Eighty-five of these executions occurred in Virginia, second
only to Texas.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please send appeals to arrive as quickly
as possible, in your own words:
- expressing sympathy for the family of Timothy Hall, and explaining
that you do not seek to condone his murder or the suffering it will
have caused;
- expressing deep concern that Walter Mickens was not informed that
his court-appointed lawyer had represented Hall, a clear violation of
ethics;
- noting that this failure breached international fair trial rights, and that
his execution will therefore violate international law;
- noting that a failure to stop this execution can only damage public
confidence in the US criminal justice system;
- calling on the governor to stop Walter Mickens's execution.
APPEALS TO:
Governor Mark R. Warner
State Capitol, 3rd Floor
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Fax: 1 804 371 6351
E-mail (via website):
www.governor.state.va.us/Contact/email'form.html
Salutation: Dear Governor
You may write a brief letter (not more than 250 words) to:
Letters to the Editor
Richmond Times-Dispatch
PO Box 85333
Richmond, Virginia 23293
Fax: 1 804 819 1216
E-mail: letters@timesdispatch.com
PLEASE SEND APPEALS IMMEDIATELY.
Amnesty International is a worldwide grassroots movement
that promotes and defends human rights.
Urgent Action Network
Amnesty International USA
PO Box 1270
Nederland CO 80466-1270
Email: uan@aiusa.org
http://www.amnestyusa.org/urgent/
Phone: 303 258 1170
Fax: 303 258 7881