That Damn Death Penalty - Again

by Katherine Scardino

I have posted many articles on Women in Crime Ink about the death penalty, especially in the State of Texas. There have been several incidences recently which scream out for a revisit of this unpopular and hateful subject.

I read an article yesterday in the local Houston paper that our Supreme Court refused to give Linda Carty a new trial - even though her trial lawyers did not put on any mitigating evidence and only met her two weeks before jury selection. Linda Carty did a terrible thing. She kidnapped a woman and her four-day-old baby, and killed the mother. Do not misunderstand - I, of all people, am well aware of the horrible acts that one person can commit against another. It is sickening and disgusting. That doesn't change the fact that we must have rules and laws that we all obey we're going to take a person’s life in the name of our law.

I admit I don't know all the facts of the Linda Carty case. Thank goodness I wasn't involved in it -- and I hope that if I had been, no one could say she had an incompetent defense. But the two failures in her defense are enough in my mind to give pause to the Supreme Court’s decision.

A defense attorney has a duty to “know” his client -- especially one who may die as a result of the attorney’s laxity or ineptness. It is indefensible for a lawyer to not meet his client until two weeks prior to trial. It is indefensible for a lawyer to know so little about his client that he has no witnesses and records to present to the jury during the punishment phase of a capital case. How can any attorney convince a jury that mercy -- life in prison instead of execution -- is appropriate without a complete picture of the defendant's background? What kind of life did this person live? What negative influences may have changed his life? 

This attorney is not arguing guilt or innocence. If he convinces the jury, it won't mean the defendant will walk out of the courtroom and down the elevator with you.

Then, there is the arson murder case of Cameron Todd Willingham. Willingham was convicted of setting a fire that killed his three children. I don't have the words to express my outrage at how ignorant and uninformed Gov. Rick Perry sounded when he said the there was other evidence besides the state's arson experts to prove the cause of the fire. The State of Texas had to prove arson if the jury were to reach a capital murder verdict. The problem is that fire experts, not just someone the post-conviction lawyers pulled off the streets, but individuals renowned in the field, now condemn the state’s arson testimony as bogus and unscientific. Oh, did I forget to mention - Texas has already executed Cameron Todd Willingham. He was most certainly an innocent person. At least, Perry must be afraid he was. In October, Perry abruptly replaced the chairman and two members of the state's Forensic Science Commission -- two days before they were to hear the evidence of the arson expert. 

Rick Perry doesn't like the idea that while he sat on his ass and refused to look at the reputable fire scientists' evidence, Cameron Todd Willingham died.
Is there one person out there who can state that Cameron Todd Willingham is the only innocent person Texas has executed? I dare you to make that statement. You would have to ignore the evidence related to the cases of Carlos DeLuna and Ruben Cantu, just to name two. There are many more. But, the issue is - even if there is one, just one - that is one too many. Killing another human being, through an act of violence or an act of the supposed legal system of Texas our State, is final. We can't bring that person back to life. We took that away from him or her, and we did it wrongly.

Our capital punishment system in Texas -- and elsewhere -- is flawed. It is not dispensed fairly. It is not certain. Arrogant, self-centered, unqualified politicians decide whether new evidence is sufficient to stop an execution. These same arrogant, self-centered politicians -- so-called judges -- tell us that “actual innocence” is not enough to warrant a new trial, let alone stop an execution.

What in the hell are we doing?

Tweet

What Makes a Good Trial Lawyer

by Kelly Siegler

The opinions of individual trial lawyers—if asked what makes a lawyer a good trial lawyer—would be as varied as their own egos. Most laymen and the average citizen called down for jury duty probably assume that all lawyers are good trial lawyers or ought to be anyway. Isn't that what they are paid to do? And way too many lawyers who call themselves trial lawyers, when they aren't, would in some way try to describe themselves in answering the question.

The simplest answer I've given before when asked this question is "preparation." While that is certainly true and a huge part of what makes any trial lawyer good at what he does, preparation alone could never explain it completely. Or even come close. Lots of lawyers try their hardest to be prepared. But does that necessarily carry over to the "presentation" aspect, the part that catches a juror's attention convincingly? Does preparation lay the groundwork for a sought after verdict, even most of the time?

Probably not.

Then what does?

Eloquence perhaps. Tenacity. Aggressiveness. Intelligence. All of these qualities would seem to answer the question.

So do qualities like having a photographic memory or having a way with words. Having a commanding presence in the courtroom certainly helps.

Whatever adjectives you or others might use to try and describe what makes one lawyer a successful trial lawyer where another is not are probably all good answers. But what is that ONE quality or trait or characteristic without which a given trial lawyer fails to pass the test most of the time??

I believe it is the ability to know people.

To empathize with them. To understand what they must be thinking as you put on your case. To appreciate their unique perspectives. To see and hear your evidence and the opposing lawyer's case as if you were inside their minds and their hearts.

To evaluate what is going on inside the courtroom critically from someone's point of view besides your own.

Where does anyone, lawyer or not, get such a trait or ability?

Are you either born with the ability or not? Can a good trial lawyer lose such an ability the more successful he becomes if he allows himself to lose touch with his "old" way of thinking? Don't some people simply have no clue of what it means to understand others' perspectives?

Are how you are raised and where you are from two of the most important contributors to being able to understand, empathize and appreciate other people's opinions?

I would say that they are. For whatever reason someone might have been forced to or called upon to "get along" in the world or "adjust" to a difficult situation, contributes directly to making him deal with human nature. Because to deal with human nature, you have to try and understand it.

Then, when it comes time as a lawyer in a trial to critically decide which citizen would best serve as a favorable juror, you have a better understanding of that juror's possible perspective in viewing your evidence. As any witness testifies, you have a better appreciation of how that witness comes across to twelve, normal citizens. As you interview and prepare your witnesses for their time on the stand, you can prepare them in ways that others might not be able.

If you understand people, you have a different grasp of the words that not only might appeal to them, but also sing to them and stay with them.

Long after any trial lawyer has left the courtroom.

Tweet