I’m OK with keeping the death penalty in reserve for those convicted killers who want it as a way out of life in prison. Too many cases of people freed on evidence after X number of years has convinced me that we have, in this country and probably in this state, convicted someone who was innocent and then put them to death. So I say we have our moratorium, and let the killers opt in if they want to.

There is no legal basis upon which indigent defense alone could encompass all capital punishment. Even a “backdoor ban” (i.e. making the cost of capital punishment for indigents prohibitly expensive) would fail to pass muster, because that would mean that someone above the poverty line could face the death penalty while someone below it couldn’t. Capital punishment jurisprudence revolves around whether the act of killing itself is cruel and unusual punishment… you can’t get an outright judicial ban on Constitutional grounds until and unless the judiciary answers that question with a yes.

As for the concerns that judges “might not like Richardson bad-mouthing them”… when have Republican lawmakers ever said a kind word about lawyers?!? This isn’t exactly a revolutionary break from tradition or anything…

I agree the Death Penalty should only be used in extreme circumstances. However, a judical ban of the DP, as outline by Erick’s hypo, would prevent its use at all.

Look, I’m not arguing for giving Brian Nichols a blank check. I simply read nostalgic comments about firing squads, and suggestions that suspects should get only a rubber-stamp token defense, and think that some standards are necessary. The rabidly pro-death penalty crowd comes across sounding like a lynch mob a lot of the time, and I simply believe our country is better than that.

I think the case Erick is trying to make is that the anti-death-penalty crowd will use the Speaker’s veiled threats against the judge as a basis for getting a federal court to throw out the death penalty.

Nothing to do with 8th amendment grounds, but Gideon grounds.

Also, I am very pleased with Mack Crawford as the new head of the PDSC. I have no doubt what-so-ever that he will fix (and is indeed fixing) many of the problems that have plagued the system. Unfortunately, there are some things he simply has no control over. This case being the most obvious example of that.

And consider that up in Gwinnett County, there was a dust-up between the PD’s office and Judge Ray concerning their payment schedule – they wanted the same rate as Nichol’s dream team is getting. Also, Brian Steele did something similar down in or around Macon I think with negative results.

Part of the question that should be asked is what are these over-paid attorneys from NC doing? Guilt is all but conceded. So what are they doing for the penalty phase?

One final point – why is it not a bigger issue that when Henderson & Co. do indigent work in NC they charge a much lower hourly rate?

Did he say those words?

You’re correct, I don’t comprehend what you’re actually saying (your over-the-top hyperbolic headline makes it look like the Speaker favors abolition). To successfully “sue away” capital punishment in Georgia (or any other state), a plaintiff would have to establish a precedent that capital punishment is cruel and unusual punishment (i.e. the “we’re not really sure that the anesthesia works” kind of argument). Nothing in your post even hints about that sort of thing. Nichols getting funding or not has nothing to do with the overall debate over abolishing the death penalty.

Dorian -

I’m sure that defense would love to see the case tossed out due to inadequate funding. Their job is to provide the best defense possible, and complete victory is a pretty good defense. However, their motives don’t change the fact that such a strategy couldn’t work if the moron prosecutor hadn’t set it up for them.

You’re wrong. The capital defenders office will probably tell you themselves that they are using money to break the system. Although the Nichols trial is outsourced, the same principles apply. If you’d ever have met or been in court with these folks, you’d see that they are rabid about abolishing the death penalty. Which is kinda ironic, considering that, until recently, they couldn’t tell you how many death penalty cases they actually had. Talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees!

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren’t comprehending what I’m actually saying.

Yes, this is about indigent defense funding. But if you haven’t been paying attention, there is a large contingent of people ready to file suit to end the death penalty in Georgia.

And these machinations by the Speaker present the perfect opportunity for them to do it.

Look beyond the superficial story.

The most expensive part is the trial. As we can see in the Nichols case.

But, I can’t help but wonder out loud if Richardson isn’t thinking of a “pardon in advance” for himself or someone that he knows.

I’m not saying he’s already committed a crime. I’m saying maybe he knows someone that has or is about to commit a capital crime.

The whole GOP thing about pre-emptive action…

MD

The Nichols case has NOTHING to do with banning the death penalty. It only has to do with funding for indigent defense. If someone shoots multiple people in front of scores of eye witnesses, it should be a pretty open-and-shut matter (maybe a couple of expert witnesses on both sides to chat psychology). However, when an overzealous prosecutor (no doubt hoping to build name-recognition for his own future career) decides to balloon the thing into 400+ separate charges… that’s going to make the trial exorbitantly expensive. If it’s an indigent case, that means it’s publicly funded. If you don’t like that (and I don’t either), take it up with the self-serving prosecutor… don’t prattle on about “Clinton appointees” and “activist judges” and “the abolition of the death penalty”.

If the prosecutor had stuck with the charges necessary, there would be no issue here. If the Georgia legislature concerned itself with funding the criminal justice system as much as it does with fishing programs, there would be no issue here. Hell, if Nichols had a few nickels in the bank, there would be no problem here! This matter only deals with INDIGENT defense… if a defendant has almost any money at all, the government doesn’t have to provide public defender services. You learned that in law school, Erick (or should have).

We can debate the morality and practicality of the death penalty in general. However, arguing about the Nichols case as being the abolition of capital punishment is either deliberately disingenuous or else just dumb.

I agree that the indictment is excessive, but when you have an elected DA who has a poor relationship with the local bench, he’s got to be able to overcharge to protect himself. Can you imagine what would happen if Paul Howard didn’t get a conviction in this case? And remember, all it takes is just one juror to buy into the either the mental health defense or the justification defense that was discussed.

Part of the problem is the use of the Senior Judge. If a sitting Judge from another Circuit had been brought in to try this case, a lot of the nonsense and shenanigans that we have seen would never have happened. Instead we now have the state version of a federal judge running the show.