Last week the Austin American-Statesman ran Chuck Lindell's enterprise reporting on Texas' broken system of post-conviction review of death penalty cases - a catastrophe overseen, sanctioned, and allowed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Yesterday and today, the editorial board of the Statesman has taken its turn.
Saturday's editorial is "Legislature should starve appeals court." LINK
At some point, the Texas Legislature must weigh whether it should continue directing tens of millions of public dollars to a court that is failing in its most important duty. Lawmakers budgeted nearly $28 million for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for the current two-year cycle.
Legislators should put the criminal appeals court out of business because the court has failed in its obligation to ensure that the condemned received competent legal help.
Texas is operating under an antiquated system that establishes two courts to handle appeals. The State Supreme Court deals with civil matters and the Court of Criminal Appeals handles criminal appeals. It would take a state constitutional amendment to replace the two courts with one supreme court for civil and criminal appeals. The Legislature, however, does have the power to yank the criminal court's budget. It should use that authority to force the court to do its job or put it out of business.
Today's editorial is "Texas needs agency for indigent capital murder defendants." LINK
In a two-day series published last week, American-Statesman writer Chuck Lindell reported on the magnitude of the problem. The work of more than a dozen lawyers was examined and the conclusions were shocking. Some attorneys who represented death row inmates in habeas appeals simply copied from their previous appeals or from other lawyers, whether the facts applied to their current cases or not. Others recycled claims that have been repeatedly denied, ignoring obvious avenues of investigation. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals mostly accepted their shoddy work.
The system is lacking for a variety of reasons, including an indifferent criminal appeals court and state bar that haven't curbed lawyers who are doing substandard work. The system lacks accountability because it's nearly impossible for incompetent lawyers (appointed by the court) to be fired. But the state also bears responsibility for a court-appointed system that allocates just $100 an hour for court-appointed lawyers and caps costs for habeas work at $25,000. Those legal fees also must pay for private investigators who are essential in building cases that stand up in court.
The investment by the state, while substantial, is too little for capital murder appeals. The solution doesn't necessarily mean that the Legislature must appropriate a lot more money, but it should find a better way of using the money it already is spending, such as establishing a statewide defender's office that is responsible for capital cases from start to finish.
That office could be financed by a combination of state money now going to court-appointed lawyers handling death row habeas appeals and county dollars that fund lawyers for indigent capital murder defendants for their initial trials. Such an agency could hire lawyers who are experienced and competent in handling death row cases. It isn't a perfect solution, but far better than what is in place now.
The news series is here.
Comments