Supreme Court Considers Mental Competence and Appeals

Last week the United States Supreme Court considered a case which will decide whether a federal judge has the authority to indefinitely stay a criminal defendant's appeal pending a determination that the inmate is mentally competent to assist their attorney in the appeal.  A defendant appealing a death sentence in federal court has a legal right to an attorney but there has never been a determination that the defendant has to be mentally fit to pursue that appeal.  This case involves Sean Carter, who was convicted in Ohio of the murder of his grandmother after he had been released from prison in 1997 and was sentenced to death.  The other case involves Ernest Gonzalez, who was convicted of first degree murder during a burglary in Arizona in 1999 and sentenced to death. The federal judge handling Carter's appeal stayed the appeal until he was mentally competent but the Court of Appeals changed the ruling to allow the part of the appeal that did not require his cooperation to proceed.  In Gonzalez's case the trial judge ruled that his appeal would not be delayed while the Court of Appeals stayed the appeal until he was ruled mentally competent.  The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on these cases, which involve a common question of whether a defendant must be mentally competent while an appeal is pursued on their behalf.  Court observers who were at the oral arguments seem to think that the majority of the Court is leaning towards ruling against the proposition that an inmate has to be mentally competent. The Court is expected to issue its ruling later this year.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.legaldefenderspc.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Supreme Court Rules Death Row Defendant Can Pursue Appeal

Last week the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling on a case that we have been reporting on for some time.  The case involves Cory Maples, who had been convicted of two murders in Alabama and sentenced to death.  We first reported about this case on October 5, 2011.  Maples wanted to appeal his murder conviction and death sentence because his attorneys failed to argue that he was impaired at the time of the murders.  His initial appeal was denied and the court mailed out notice to his attorneys that they had 42 days to file an appeal.  Both of the young attorneys that had handled his case and his appeal had left the firm and had not informed the clerk of the court, the prosecutor, or Mr. Maples.  The notices that had been mailed to his attorneys were "Returned to Sender."  The Clerk of the Court did nothing when they received these notices back in the mail.  The 42 days came and went and Maples did not pursue his appeal.  The Alabama courts ruled that he had lost his right to appeal.  Last week, the United States Supreme Court ruled Maples had withstood a "veritable perfect storm of misfortune" and should be allowed to pursue his appeal.  But while this was the part of the story which gathered all the attention, there's another part of the decision which we would like to discuss.  In its decision, the United States Supreme took a swipe at Alabama for it s unjust system of capital punishment.  The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg.  She pointed out that Alabama only requires that an attorney appointed to represent an indigent defendant in a capital case have 5 years of criminal law experience.  No capital case experience is required.  The state does not provide, nor does it require any professional education or training in capital cases, appointed lawyers are underpaid.  In addition, Alabama is one of the only states that does not provide legal representation throughout post conviction proceedings.  This means that a defendant with the financial resources can often escape the Death Penalty, whereas a poor defendant is left to fend for themselves.  In Maples case, his lawyers admitted that they were "stumbling around in the dark" because they lacked experience handling capital cases.  The Supreme Court's decision means that Alabama lawmakers should do more to insure that indigent criminal defendants have adequate legal representation in Alabama.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Louisiana Murder Case

On Tuesday the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on an interesting Louisiana murder case.  Juan Smith had been convicted of five murders at a New Orleans house party in 1995.  At trial, a witness testified that he saw Smith walk through the front door of the house and was face to face with Smith and that he would never forget him.  But on the night of the murders the witness had told the police that he could not identify the shooter other that he was African-American and had gold teeth.  Five days later he told the police the same thing.  The prosecutors never revealed this to Smith's attorneys prior to trial.  At the time of the trial, the prosecutor's office would not turn over all the evidence to defendants.  The current prosecutor turns over all evidence today.  The state agreed that the evidence should have been turned over but argued that even if it had been turned over, it would not have made a difference.  

The Supreme Court's decision in this case will have major implications for Smith who has been sentenced to death for three other murders.  Prosecutors used his conviction for these murders in arguing for the death penalty on the other case.  Its possible that if Smith wins the appeal, then his death sentence for the three other murders may also be overturned.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Quinn Grants 50 Pardons

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn is continuing to work on the mountain of clemency petitions he inherited from former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.  When Quinn took office he inherited over 2,500 petitions that were sitting on his desk.  Since he took office, Quinn has acted on 1,356 clemency petitions.  He has granted   clemency 517 times and granted 506 pardons while denying 839 requests.  He has authorized 10 people who he granted pardons for to seek expungement of their records and granted one commutation.  In addition, earlier this year the State of Illinois abolished the death penalty which resulted in him commuting the death sentences of 15 inmates sentenced to death to life in prison.  On Friday, Quinn granted 50 pardons while denying 111.  The cases that he acted on Friday were filed between 2003 and 2009.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.  

Supreme Court Hears Missed Deadline Capital Case

In 1995, Cory Maples shot and killed two friends in an Alabama bar after a night of drinking and doing drugs.  He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death.  Maples wanted to appeal the death sentence because his attorneys failed to argue that he was impaired at the time of the murders so as to avoid the death penalty.  His initial appeal was denied and the court clerk sent his attorneys notice that under local court rules that they had 42 days to file an appeal.  The two young attorneys that were handling his appeal had left the law firm and the notice was returned to the Clerk of the Court marked "Return to Sender - Left Firm."  The 42 day deadline to file the appeal expired and Alabama prosecutors took a hard line and fought Maples' efforts to pursue his appeal claiming that the time to file an appeal had expired and his case was over.  The United States Court of Appeals in Alabama agreed and barred Maples from pursuing his appeal.  Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court took up Maples appeal.  The issue is whether a defendant sentenced to death can pursue his appeal even though he missed court filing deadlines?

According to published reports, during oral arguments, the majority of judges seemed sympathetic to Maples.  Only one justice, Antonin Scalia, seemed to be siding with the prosecutors.  Scalia seemed to believe that since Maples had a local lawyer, he had ample opportunity to be informed of his appellate rights.  But the Chief Justice pointed out that the local lawyer did nothing on the case and only seemed to have his name on the case. Even Samuel Alito, another very conservative justice, seemed to indicate that Alabama prosecutors were wrong to oppose Maples' attempts to pursue his appeal.

The case is Maples v. Thomas, 10-63.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Life Sentence For Juveniles Convicted of Murder Upheld

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld a ruling that juveniles convicted of murder may be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.  The case involves Kenneth Loggins who was convicted in Alabama of the 1994 murder of a hitchhiker committed when he was 17 years old.  Loggins was originally sentenced to death but the death sentence was reduced to life imprisonment after the United States Supreme Court decision in Roper v. Simmons in which the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles convicted of murder could not receive the death penalty.  Loggins challenged the sentence of life without the possibility of parole on the grounds that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.   The Court of Appeals disagreed with Loggins and held that a juvenile can still be convicted of capital murder and receive the strictest punishment available so long as it is not the death penalty.  While the United States Supreme Court has ruled that life without parole for juveniles convicted of non-murder case is unconstitutional, it has not ruled on life without parole for murder cases.  The ACLU has filed several lawsuits against several states seeking to have this issue taken up to the Supreme Court.  The ACLU points out that the United States is the only country that sentences juveniles to prison without the possibility of parole.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295. 

Ohio Death Row Case Raises Questions Of Innocence

Kevin Keith is set to be executed by lethal injection in Ohio on September 15.  Keith is claiming that he is innocent.  While there's nothing unusual about his proclamation, what is unusual is the growing support in the legal community for his claims.  Prosecutors allege that on February 13, 1994, Keith murdered three people because he believed that they had informed on him to police investigating his illegal drug sales.  One of the murder victims was a 4 year old girl.  Several witnesses testified against Keith at trial and his attorneys did not produce any mitigating evidence at his sentencing hearing and he was sentenced to the death penalty.  A closer look at Keith's case offers some good reasons why a new trial or commutation of his death sentence may be warranted.  Some 31 former judges and prosecutors are supporting Keith's claims.  At his trial, the police had mentioned that a witness, by the name of "Amy Gimmets" had given them the name of "Keith" as the shooter who committed the murders.  Keith's defense attorneys discovered that "Amy Gimmets" does not exist.  They argue that if the jury had been told that "Amy Gimmets" did not exist, it may have undermined the credibility of the police witness.  Also, the 911 police logs do not support the police and prosecution theories of the case.  At trial, the police and prosecutors told that jury that witness John Foor had called the police and told them that the shooter was "Kevin."  The 911 tapes do not support this contention.  The same 911 tapes also show an important discrepancy in the trial testimony of a witness who claims she found a shell casing near the scene of the crime.  The shell casing was the sole piece of physical evidence prosecutors used to connect Keith to the murder.  On top of these problems, there is also compelling evidence that another man, Rodney Melton, may have committed the murders.  Keith's attorneys claim that Melton is the most likely suspect.  Melton was seen in the area right after the murders, he drove the same type of car that was driven by the shooter, Melton's license plate numbers matched partial license plate numbers that the police lifted from the snow, had an extensive violent criminal record and had previously been convicted of murder, and had told a police informant that he had been paid $15,000 to cripple a family member of some of the murder victims.  In addition, Melton had gone to the hospital on the night of the shootings and told a family member that the victims had gotten what they deserve for snitching.

Prosecutors are fighting Keith's claims of innocence and insisting that he was the murderer.  Keith is facing an uphill battle.  Post-conviction efforts by inmates like Keith have been dramatically limited by an ever-increasing conservative Supreme Court.  

We will keep you updated on any developments in this interesting case which raises serious questions about the imposition of the death penalty against a man that may be innocent.  At the very least, his claims deserve to be thoroughly examined before he is executed.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

North Carolina Review Finds Crime Lab Fixed Murder Cases

In March, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper ordered an independent review by two former FBI agents of the State Bureau of Inspection (SBI), the state's crime lab, after an agent testified that the crime lab had an unwritten policy of excluding complete blood tests results from reports provided to defense lawyers before trials.  The report was released today and it has shocking results.  The independent review found that the crime lab omitted, overstated or falsely reported blood tests in dozens of cases.  The cases involved three that ended in executions and another involving the murder of Michael Jordan's father.  The report found that the crime lab repeatedly aided prosecutors in obtaining convictions over 16 years by misrepresenting blood evidence and keeping important notes and documents from defense attorneys.  The report calls on the review of 190 criminal cases in which "information that may have been material and even favorable to the defense of an accused defendant was withheld or misrepresented."  The report finds that the lab may have violated federal and state laws that evidence favorable to the defendants must be disclosed to their lawyers.  At least four of those cases involve inmates that are on death row and one inmate whose death sentence was commuted to life.  

It is amazing that this story is being swept under the rug and is not being reported widely by the media.  This is a huge story that deserves more attention.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Rejected - Death Sentence Upheld

Today, the United States Supreme Court upheld the death sentence of an Alabama man who claimed that his attorney failed to inform the jury at the sentencing phase that he was mentally impaired.  Holly Wood was convicted of murdering his girlfriend by a shotgun blast to her head as she slept.  At the sentencing phase Wood's lawyer told the jury that Wood had no criminal record but failed to inform then that he had an IQ of less than 70 and had been classified as mentally retarded.  A federal judge had thrown out the death sentence on the basis that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel.  The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overruled the judge and reinstated the death sentence.  Today the United States Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals and found that Wood had failed to show that his attorneys performance was constitutionally ineffective.  The decision, a 7 to 2 vote, was authored by Judge Sonia Sotomayor.  In her opinion, Judge Sotomayor stated that "Even if it is debatable, it is not unreasonable to conclude that . . . counsel made a strategic decision not inquire further into the information contained in the report about Wood's mental deficiencies and not present to the jury such information."  It seems like the court refused to second guess the strategic decision made by Wood's attorney.

The case is Woods v. Allen, 08-9156.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C.,visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Death Penalty Cases

The United States Supreme Court has refused to hear 2 cases involving the imposition of the death penalty in murder cases. The first case is out of Illinois and involves the case of Dr. Ronald Mikos. Dr. Mikos was facing allegations of Medicare Fraud. In 2005 he was convicted of the murder of a former patient so he could keep her from testifying against him and sentenced to death. At his trial, he refused to testify. During the sentencing phase the prosecutors argued that his unwillingness to testify showed a lack of remorse. After he was sentenced to death, jurors cited his lack of remorse as a reason for imposing the death penalty. Mikos argued that his unwillingness to testify did not show a lack of remorse and objected to the prosecutor arguing to the jury that it did. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago upheld the death sentence and the United States Supreme Court refused to review the case without comment.

The case is Mikos v. United States, 08-1280.

The Supreme Court decided not to get involved in a case involving how the death penalty is imposed in Louisiana. In this case, the defendant was sentenced to death for her role in a brutal murder. A co-defendant was also convicted of murder and also received a death sentence. The case presented an opportunity for the Supreme Court to determine whether the death penalty in Louisiana is arbitrarily imposed on some defendants while others in similar circumstances are sentenced to life in prison.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-28-7295.

South Dakota Supreme Court Overturns Death Sentence

The South Dakota Supreme Court has overturned the death sentence of a 29 year old man because the judge did not properly advise him of his jury rights at the time of sentencing. Briley Piper abducted a 19 year old victim, along with two other defendants, as part of a plot to burglarize the home of the victim's mother while she was on vacation. After they abducted the victim, the forced him to take off most of his clothes, forced him to go into an icy creek, stabbed him repeatedly, kicked him in the head 30 to 40 times, struck him with large rocks and eventually forced him to drink hydrochloric acid. The victim's body was found in a creek several weeks after he was abducted. Piper plead guilty to the murder and waived his right to a jury to determine his sentence. At the sentencing, the trial judge incorrectly told Piper that if he chose a jury, his fate would be decided by them, instead of telling him that even if one juror disagreed on the death penalty, he would receive life without parole. The South Dakota Supreme Court ruled that this mistake meant that Piper did not make a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to a jury.

This ruling by the South Dakota Supreme Court leaves Piper's first degree murder conviction in tact but returns the case to the trial court for sentencing. Piper's attorney has indicated that Piper will ask for a jury to determine his sentence.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Delaware Supreme Court Overturns Death Sentence

The Delaware Supreme Court overturned the death sentence and ordered a new trial of a man charged with killing and raping a college student. James E. Cooke, Jr., had been convicted of the rape and murder of a 20 year old college student in 1995. Cooke proclaimed his innocence, but his attorneys asked the court to find their client guilty but mentally ill. This position ran contrary to Cooke's wishes. On appeal Cooke argued that his right to a fair trial was violated. In a 3 to 2 decision the Delaware Supreme Court agreed and ordered a new trial.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Man Who Led To Ban On Executing Menatally Retarded Sentenced to Life

In 2002, the United States Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute someone who is mentally retarded. Yesterday, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that the man who was the subject of that case is to spend the rest of his life in prison. In 1996, Daryl Atkins abducted an Air Force mechanic in front of a Virginia convenience store at gunpoint, forced him to withdraw money from an ATM machine, drove him to an isolated area and shot him 8 times. A co-defendant, who is already serving life in prison, testified that Atkins pulled the trigger. After Atkins victory in the U.S. Supreme Court, a jury found that he was not mentally retarded and reimposed the death sentence. The Virginia Supreme Court then overturned that decision and ordered another hearing to determine whether he was mentally retarded. During that hearing, the judge heard evidence that had previously not been made known to Atkins' attorneys casting doubt on his guilt. In response, the judge sentenced Atkins to life in prison. Prosecutors appealed the decision of the judge claiming that the sole purpose of the hearing was to determine whether Atkins was mentally retarded and that the judge had no authority to overturn the death sentence for any other reason. The Supreme Court of Virginia disagreed with the prosecutors and upheld the judge's decision.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.