[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide
April 2 TRINIDAD: Hanging in disbelief The Privy Council decided in 1993 in the case of Pratt and Morgan that execution could not lawfully take place more than 5 years after sentence. It was recommended that a capital appeal should be heard within 12 months of conviction and the entire domestic appeal process completed within 2 years. I remain hanging in disbelief at any suggestion that the death penalty can be resumed simply by returning to case management that makes our murder cases Pratt and Morgan compliant. On several previous occasions when the resumption of hanging ole talk has appeared I have written to explain that there are existing hindrances to the implementation of the death penalty in addition to Pratt and Morgan. On this occasion, I emphasise that 2 of these hindrances arose out of a decision of the Privy Council given shortly after the execution of Dole Chadee and his associates. The additional hindrances to the implementation of the death penalty are potential challenges to test the fairness of the Mercy Committee process and the state of conditions in prison. They are contained in Lewis and others v The Attorney General for Jamaica decided on September 12, 2000, referred to below as Lewis. In addition, condemned persons have continued to petition international human rights bodies in order to obtain a recommendation that their sentences be commuted. In The Attorney General for Barbados v Joseph and Boyce, the Caribbean Court of Justice (the CCJ) in a decision dated November 8 2006, agreed with an earlier decision of the Privy Council, although on different grounds, that a condemned person had a right to petition the relevant international human rights bodies and to have the reports of those bodies received and considered by the State prior to execution. The Privy Council to whose jurisdiction our country has remained subject, has resisted any change in the Pratt and Morgan timetable to permit execution later than five years after sentence in order to accommodate delays in the determination of appeals to international bodies. It did so even though the Board acknowledged that it might have been over-optimistic to expect that petitions to international human rights bodies could be dealt with in 18 months, particularly where petitions may be made to 2 international bodies. The CCJ has disagreed and said that the time for receiving the decision of the international bodies should not be open-ended. Access to the international bodies was not an impediment in the case of Dole Chadee. He had already accessed the international bodies and they had rejected his petitions by the time of his 2 additional last-ditch appeals to the Privy Council in 1999 heard 0n May 10 and May 29, 1999, which were unsuccessful and followed by his execution on June 4, 1999. At that time, challenges to the Mercy Committee process and prison conditions were not impediments, but the Privy Council then changed its mind in the Lewis case and departed from previous decisions that precluded matters concerning the Mercy Committee and prison conditions from being a hindrance to implementation. It was acknowledged by Purseglove SC in an interview in this newspaper, last week, that "the Privy Council is looking all the time for reasons to stop a country executing". In the 1st of Chadee's appeals, when the Privy Council gave its reasons it expressly stated that it had held in Thomas and Hilaire in March 1999 that prison conditions were not a constitutional ground, without more, for commutation of a death sentence. 18 months later, the Board changed direction in the Lewis case. Regarding the change of direction by the Privy Council in Lewis, in a pungent dissent, Lord Hoffman said: "If the Board feels able to depart from a previous decision simply because its members on a given occasion have a 'doctrinal disposition to come out differently', the rule of law itself will be damaged and there will be no stability in the administration of justice in the Caribbean". It is also worth repeating the following words of the Privy Council, per Lord Nicholls, which indicate that nothing short of a constitutional amendment can revive the death penalty for implementation: "If the requisite legislative support for a change in the constitution is forthcoming, a deliberate departure from fundamental human rights may be made, profoundly regrettable although this may be. That is the prerogative of the legislature. If departure from fundamental human rights is desired, that is the way it should be done. The constitution should be amended explicitly." In response to the above realities our political leaders have, as is common, ducked confronting the real issues. On the death penalty question there has been little attempt at consultation with the country followed by genuine bi-partisan constitutional reform, if desired. Political focus remains on periodic
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, PENN., GA., OHIO, ARK., OKLA., CALIF.
April 2 TEXAS: Smith County judges eye pay increase for court-appointed attorneys in capital murder death penalty cases The dwindling number of Smith County defense attorneys who are willing to take on capital murder death penalty cases for indigent defendants has prompted local district court judges to consider raising the hourly compensation. During a recent meeting of the Smith County Council of Judges, Judge Jack Skeen Jr. with the 241st District Court said he believes the number of local attorneys on the list is down because the compensation is not sufficient to take the attorneys away from their regular practice and to make up for the stress they are going to incur while working the case. In addition, he said, the hourly rate is insufficient to compensate them for their expertise. "I just think it's time for us to look at it," he said. The issue has come into play recently with Judge Christi Kennedy of the 114th District Court having to hire 3 out-of-county attorneys to represent defendants in a case in her court. In another example, criminal defense attorney Jeff Haas, who is representing Gustavo Zavala-Garcia in a capital murder case, said he had been unable to find a 2nd-chair attorney for the case and believed the compensation rates were part of the problem. Another part of the problem comes down to the circumstances after a conviction, he said. Because of the mandatory appeals, the case isn't over when there is a conviction, and some attorneys don't want to be as tied up as long as they are when they do this type of case. The fee schedule as outlined by an October 2001 local order calls for lead, or first chair, attorneys in capital cases, in which the state seeks the death penalty, to be paid $80 per hour for out-of-court time and $100 per hour for in-court time. Co-counsel, or 2nd-chair attorneys, receive a rate of $50 per hour for out-of-court time and $60 per hour for in-court time. The order goes on to say the lead counsel shall not receive more than $40,000 in attorney fees for a capital murder death penalty case. Co-counsel shall receive no more than $22,500 in the same situation, according to the order. That said, the order allows for the district court judges to increase or decrease the fees as they deem necessary. "Total compensation ... shall be determined by the judge upon the circumstances and complexity of each case," the order reads. When the local attorneys on the approved list are taken, the district court judges have to look for and hire out-of-county counsel, which often means paying more because of hotel stays, mileage and meals. Though these rates may make many professionals envious, the amount of time, energy and stress involved in these cases is difficult to match. "When you're the defendant's lawyer in a capital case, you stand between the defendant and death," said criminal defense attorney Buck Files of Tyler who has represented 9 defendants in 11 capital cases. "It is the most stressful challenge I believe any lawyer can ever have." Because of the gravity of these cases, the time investment is huge. An attorney puts aside everything else to try to take care of the client, Files said. Working on one of these cases essentially means an attorney focuses exclusively on this case. In addition, a capital murder case is not over when a guilty verdict is announced and a sentence read. There are mandatory appeals, and although different attorneys are appointed to represent a defendant on appeal, the original attorneys often find themselves having to defend their work on the trial for years if their former client claims "ineffective assistance of counsel," which they typically do, in post-conviction proceedings. So, in committing to represent a defendant in a capital murder death penalty case, the attorney is committing for the long haul. Files said it is not uncommon for expert witnesses to receive much more than defense lawyers get in a case. He said in a case in which a partner in his firm served as defense attorney, the investigator and mitigation specialist got paid more than he did. "(The) problem from my perspective in a capital murder case (is) the only people who are asked to sacrifice, other than jurors ... are criminal defense lawyers," Files said. "Everyone else gets to draw their standard rate." The fee schedules for court-appointed attorneys in these types of cases vary statewide, Files said, adding that, to be fair, he has seen Smith County judges pay more in some cases. For Haas, though, it comes down to a personal conviction as to why he is willing to represent indigent defendants charged with capital murder. "I have a responsibility to the judicial system to do these cases," he said. After discussing the issues of compensation rates, the judges ultimately decided to table it. Though they had some proposed rates for 1st- and 2nd-chair attorneys, they had
