The poor quality of lawyers in death penalty cases is a problem that won't go away. Fully half of all cases have come to a governor seeking clemency in North Carolina since the death penalty was reinstated had trial lawyers who would be accepted under current standards.
Not one, not two, but half of these defendants were represented by drunk lawyers, criminally convicted or drug-addicted lawyers. They were represented by terminally ill lawyers who -- through no fault of their own -- did not have the physical strength to work on the case. They were represented by lawyers fresh out of school or by lawyers with virtually no experience in death penalty cases. They were represented by attorneys who were forced to continue even when they asked to withdraw. In some cases, the defendants had no lawyers at all.
The system is broken, and it's getting worse. Nine of the 11 cases that have come to Gov. Mike Easley for clemency had trial lawyers who fit the category of not being acceptable under current standards for the earlier mentioned reasons.
Easley is faced with two more clemency decisions in early December. These cases continue the trend of trial counsel who would not be accepted under current standards.
One of Desmond Carter's lawyers was reprimanded by the state Bar for making demeaning statements about his client. Ernest Basden was given one lawyer with no death penalty experience and one terminally ill lawyer who had to step down. The new lawyer was given only six weeks to prepare Basden's defense.
Republican legislators Bob Shaw and John Blust attempted to address the problem of unacceptable lawyering by successfully sponsoring a bill that asked the N.C. Supreme Court to set minimum standards in death penalty cases. At the same time, the newly established Office of Indigent Defense Services set standards for cases now being tried. These are important steps in the right direction. According to Joe Chesire, a member of the Indigent Defense Commission, the standards for new counsel have been significantly tightened and improved.
Unfortunately, these improvements have had no effect at all on cases tried prior to 2002. Virtually no action has been taken to insure that the death-sentenced prisoners now coming to Easley for clemency were represented by attorneys who, at the very least, were sober, in good standing with the Bar, free of criminal convictions and with a modicum of experience. Most of the cases that end up at the governor's doorstep involve defense attorneys a reasonable North Carolinian wouldn't call for help on a traffic ticket.
Some will say that, while a drunk or disbarred lawyer is not desirable, it makes no difference because these cases have been reviewed by the higher courts. Unfortunately, a higher court is often not allowed to provide a meaningful review of problems as fundamental as a defendant's innocence if the trial attorney failed to point them out.
These are the same attorneys -- the ones who were high on a fifth of Jack Daniels, disbarred or criminally convicted -- that the system is relying on to object when problems come up at trial.
