Today I read with interest the New York Times report on the death penalty appeal of one Jose Medellin, on the basis that there was a violation of international law in that he was not allowed to consult with the Mexican consulate. For the moment, the Supreme Court has declined to review the case, on the basis that it is not ripe, as President Bush has ordered the states to revisit the issue, which could theoretically lead to a resolution in this case.
There is a lot going on in this case that I'd like to talk about further. But one particular paragraph stood out to me, because it reminded me of something that bothered me in law school. (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer; never took the bar; may finally take it next February; nothing I say should be construed as legal advice!) The Times stated:
Last year, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Texas in ruling that federal relief for Medellin was barred because he did not file objections at trial. It cited a 1998 Supreme Court case that suggested treaties were subject to each country's procedural rules.
While the resources of the courts to review everything are limited, and lawyers are under some obligation to use those resources efficiently while representing their clients to the utmost of their abilities while following established procedures, it is beyond the pale that people should go to their death because of a lawyer's oversights and failures on procedural questions, such as failing to raise a timely objection. Where the objection means the difference between life and death, and is recognized as even potentially legitimate, it should be allowed in at any time. It seems to me that there is a convenient legal rationalization that gets the legal system out of a little extra work, or perhaps, to be honest, a lot of extra work. To paraphrase this mostly unspoken, but frequently implied, fiction, "the lawyer and the client are one and the same, and therefore the client must pay for the mistakes of the lawyer". In practice, this is actually pretty realistic, because that's the way the ball ends up bouncing, and again, there are limits to how much the courts can do. But a lawyer is only a human being, while a defendant in a capital case, who may in fact be innocent and in any case has certain rights which are important to our system of justice, has only so much resources and ability to hire a decent lawyer. In fact, the lawyer will be appointed if the defendant is indigent, and this attorney will almost definitely not be a former member of OJ's "Dream Team". When lives hang in the balance, if indeed we live in what President Bush has termed, though perhaps cynically, a "culture of life", then I believe that a defendant's fundamental rights under the law must be given more weight than procedural questions such as whether those rights were exercised in a "timely" manner by an attorney who was nevertheless trying to do his or her utmost.
The rules of procedure should not otherwise be loosened; efficiency is still important to clogged up courtrooms. If a lawyer intentionally abuses whatever laxity might be introduced by my suggestion, for example by strategically saving up objections to raise belated appeals, there should be a sanction against the lawyer for abusing the system, but not against the client's life.
See:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Scotus-Death-Penalty.html?hp&ex=1116907200&en=f39e0f684a49f45c&ei=5094&partner=homepage
No comments:
Post a Comment