Daveswife
06-09-2002, 11:49 AM
ACTION ALERT
--
This information is forwarded by Virginia CURE
(Please send email to Virginia CURE if you wish to be removed from this list.)
Some who are on multiple lists will undoubtedly receive several copies of this message. I send it to Virginia CURE's list because it is important to take action.
Jean
----------
From: mcadena@aiusa.org
Reply-To: vaprogressivejustice@***********.com
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 11:41:49 -0400
To: vaprogressivejustice@***********.com
Subject: [vaprogressivejustice] upcoming execution (Walter Mickens) - Action request please forward liberally
Hi everyone -
Please take action and send this appeal along - Governor Warner needs to
hear from us.
thanks,
Mona Cadena
field Organizer Amnesty International
202.544.0200 x263
PUBLIC AI Index:
AMR 51/081/2002
EXTRA 41/02 Death
penalty / Legal concern 29 May 2002
USA (Virginia) Walter Mickens (m), black, aged 47
Walter Mickens 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 English or your own language, 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, USA
Fax: + 1 804 371 6351
E-mail (via website): www.governor.state.va.us/Contact/email_form.html
Salutation: Dear Governor
COPIES TO: diplomatic representatives of the USA accredited to your
country.
You may write a brief letter (not more than 250 words) to Letters to the
Editor, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Box 85333, Richmond, Virginia 23293, USA.
Fax: +1 804 819 1216. E-mail: letters@timesdispatch.com
PLEASE SEND APPEALS IMMEDIATELY.
--
This information is forwarded by Virginia CURE
(Please send email to Virginia CURE if you wish to be removed from this list.)
Some who are on multiple lists will undoubtedly receive several copies of this message. I send it to Virginia CURE's list because it is important to take action.
Jean
----------
From: mcadena@aiusa.org
Reply-To: vaprogressivejustice@***********.com
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 11:41:49 -0400
To: vaprogressivejustice@***********.com
Subject: [vaprogressivejustice] upcoming execution (Walter Mickens) - Action request please forward liberally
Hi everyone -
Please take action and send this appeal along - Governor Warner needs to
hear from us.
thanks,
Mona Cadena
field Organizer Amnesty International
202.544.0200 x263
PUBLIC AI Index:
AMR 51/081/2002
EXTRA 41/02 Death
penalty / Legal concern 29 May 2002
USA (Virginia) Walter Mickens (m), black, aged 47
Walter Mickens 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 English or your own language, 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, USA
Fax: + 1 804 371 6351
E-mail (via website): www.governor.state.va.us/Contact/email_form.html
Salutation: Dear Governor
COPIES TO: diplomatic representatives of the USA accredited to your
country.
You may write a brief letter (not more than 250 words) to Letters to the
Editor, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Box 85333, Richmond, Virginia 23293, USA.
Fax: +1 804 819 1216. E-mail: letters@timesdispatch.com
PLEASE SEND APPEALS IMMEDIATELY.