That's the title of a must-read article in Sunday's San Antonio Express-News by Maro Robbins. It addresses the failure by some lawyers to present a proper habeas corpus petition on behalf of a death row inmate, a critical phase of post-conviction review of death sentences. LINK
With his client's life on the line, the lawyer appointed to file the death row inmate's final state appeal cobbled together arguments that were incomplete, vague and, in at least one place, just plain wrong.
They perplexed the prosecutor and provoked a 606-page response from the judge.
"Applicant totally misinterprets what actually occurred in this case," State District Judge Noe Gonzalez of Edinburg wrote about one of the attorney's claims.
Appalled by the lawyer's work, a committee of attorneys and citizens formally complained to the agency that polices attorney misconduct, the State Bar of Texas.
The result?
The attorney, Mark Alexander of McAllen, remains on the state's list of 136 lawyers who can be appointed to the cases that challenge convictions and help ensure no one unfairly convicted reaches the execution chamber.
The State Bar dismissed the grievance against Alexander. His former client, Arturo Eleazar Diaz, remains on death row, arguing the courts never really reviewed his case because Alexander botched the appeal.
Confusing as they may have been, Alexander's arguments are the last words Texas courts are likely to hear about Diaz. They remain fixed in the record, an example of a dilemma apparent to observers of all political stripes:
Texas tolerates and even finances questionable legal work in the closing chapters of its death penalty cases — the court challenges known as applications for writs of habeas corpus.
"It's a problem. It needs to be addressed," said Judge Cheryl Johnson, a Republican on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. "But I don't think there are any easy solutions to it."
You'll want to read the entire article.
Comments