That's the title of an editorial in today's New York Times concerning the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Martel v. Clair, handed down earlier this week. The ruling is available in Adobe .pdf format.
The Supreme Court properly ruled this week that the legal standard federal courts should use in deciding if an indigent defendant in a death penalty case can get a new lawyer is whether replacing appointed counsel serves “the interests of justice.”
In her opinion for the unanimous court in Martel v. Clair, Justice Elena Kagan explained there was no reason to deviate from this standard, which applies to substitution of counsel in noncapital cases.
The court is right on the legal standard. But it unjustly denied Kenneth Clair, a death row inmate in California, the right to change lawyers because of the particular facts of his case.
And:
While this ruling clarifies the proper standard for new counsel in capital cases, it is also a reminder that the horror of the death penalty continues in California and elsewhere in the country.
The SCOTUSblog case file contains all briefing in the case.
Comments