- “Defense counsel recommended Davis stipulate to a sentence of life with no possibility of parole because, as a black defendant accused of killing a white victim, he would likely receive the death penalty.”
- “Perhaps most egregiously, it appears from the record that defense counsel may not have been aware that Davis was only 16 years old at the time of the offense.”
- “Defense hastily concluded after reviewing the police report and meeting with Davis for less than two hours, that a death sentence was the most likely possibility. Remarkably, it appears as though defense counsel undertook no investigation at all into Davis’ background, the victim’s background or the credibility of witnesses who could paint Davis in a sympathetic light. It is extremely unlikely that a Nevada jury would have imposed the death penalty if the shooting were accidental and given that the victim was a drug addict killed while attempting to sell a stolen gun to Davis. Most significantly, it is extremely uncommon for 16-year-olds to receive the death penalty.”
The article notes that “The ruling does not name the defense lawyers who initially represented Davis. Federal court records indicate county public defenders David Gibson [who was not immediately available for comment] and Stephen Dahl [now a judge, who said he did not directly handle Davis’ case] appeared in Clark County District Court on Davis’ behalf in 1988.”
My lack of criminal law experience keeps me silent in most criminal matters, as does the existence of webloggers who are expert in this area. However, criminal defendants are also consumers of legal services and ethicalEsq can’t stifle itself this time. I’ve often seen first hand, and have complained at this site, about the lack of diligence in Family Court matters — frequently by public defenders and assigned counsel. But the idea of such lazy (immoral, actually) lawyering in a capital murder case even shocks skepticalEsq. Heavy caseloads and other such excuses simply don’t begin to justify such a cavalier attitude toward the rights and well-being of a client. I hope that bar counsel will look closely at the records of the attorneys and Office involved, to see if there was a pattern of such misconduct, and take strong disciplinary action, no matter how much time may have elapsed since the Davis case.
The stories of incompetent representation that I hear are appalling. But as I’ve commented before, I personally have not seen any examples of it during the three years that I handled court appointed work. As an aside, when I started CJA work, I’d just come off working in a biglaw type of environment so I was sort of looking forward to seeing how the supposedly inferior lawyers worked. But I never did. Sure, I saw pleadings that were a little less well proofed or drafted than large firm pleadings — but they were probably written in 1/10 the amount of time and cost. And all the attorneys whom I observed in court were always well prepared and properly assertive and vigorous in their defense.
Of course, some of the solutions to so-called incompetance could be readily cured with additional resources. I can sympathize with the difficulties of tracking down witnesses to interview them – but if someone set up a fund whereby attorneys could get decent investigators to do the job, that problem would be cured. As for failing to identify or raise issues, if LEXIS or other commercialized services gave CJA lawyers free research accounts (as they do so readily for law students and academics), that would also address that problem. I am always amazed and annoyed when large law firms who take on capital appeals boast about how the case cost them $1 million in attorney time. Think of how much better those foregone-billables would be spent if law firms gave court appointed counsel access to their LEXIS accounts and a paralegal to investigate a case — I’d bet that over 1/2 of those capital appeals would disappear.
Comment by Carolyn Elefant — January 12, 2004 @ 11:56 am
The stories of incompetent representation that I hear are appalling. But as I’ve commented before, I personally have not seen any examples of it during the three years that I handled court appointed work. As an aside, when I started CJA work, I’d just come off working in a biglaw type of environment so I was sort of looking forward to seeing how the supposedly inferior lawyers worked. But I never did. Sure, I saw pleadings that were a little less well proofed or drafted than large firm pleadings — but they were probably written in 1/10 the amount of time and cost. And all the attorneys whom I observed in court were always well prepared and properly assertive and vigorous in their defense.
Of course, some of the solutions to so-called incompetance could be readily cured with additional resources. I can sympathize with the difficulties of tracking down witnesses to interview them – but if someone set up a fund whereby attorneys could get decent investigators to do the job, that problem would be cured. As for failing to identify or raise issues, if LEXIS or other commercialized services gave CJA lawyers free research accounts (as they do so readily for law students and academics), that would also address that problem. I am always amazed and annoyed when large law firms who take on capital appeals boast about how the case cost them $1 million in attorney time. Think of how much better those foregone-billables would be spent if law firms gave court appointed counsel access to their LEXIS accounts and a paralegal to investigate a case — I’d bet that over 1/2 of those capital appeals would disappear.
Comment by Carolyn Elefant — January 12, 2004 @ 11:56 am