.jpg)
Monday, May 11, 2009
Gray's counsel move for extension to filing deadline
Ronald Gray's counsel today asked for a 120-day extension in their deadline to file the traverse to the United States' response to his habeas petition. The motion, which is available here, is based largely on the defense's need for time to conduct a mitigation investigation, which apparently none of Gray's counsel ever received funding to perform. The motion is supported by an affidavit from Russell Stetler -- one of the nation's premier experts on capital mitigation investigations -- describing the investigation's necessity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
"mitigation" = whine & snivel
But occasionally effective, and nonetheless quite well tolerated.
"mitigation" = Lockett & Eddings
I'm sure the court is going to be slightly curious about what actions the counsel has taken in the last 10 years or so to obtain that critical mitigation evidence that was not presented at trial. Guess the old matra that witnesses forget, evidence gets stale doesn't apply.
Mistakes do happen.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/12/death.row.exoneration/index.html
Doesn't it seem odd that a murderer gets to argue that he shouldn't be killed because of (insert mitigation crap), but the people he killed have no one to speak for them? He's a bit late to the table to say that mitigation should be considered before people die.
From an objective standpoint, it is well established that before the government undertakes to take a person's life, it should deliberate upon that life's worthiness in spite of the heinous crime that the person committed. That would be the "mitigation" aspect of sentencing.
And why shouldn't Gray's defense counsel be the one to hold the government's feet to the fire when it comes to that requirement? Who else is going to advocate on Gray's behalf? Just because someone is a murderer does not deprive him of the right to argue that his life should not be taken. Our justice system strives to better than the primitive animal compulsion to take a life for a life. Whether or not the members buy into that argument would depend on how cynical they are. If it's a panel full of folks like Anons 1205 and 1636, then Gray is screwed -- but so be it; he at least got the chance to make the argument, which is all he's asking for.
To the defense, it is just a game to frustrate the government, or worse, Gray is a pawn in their anti-death-penalty agenda.
Actually, Gray probably does not view himself as a pawn. He is probably among the greatest proponents of the "anti-death penalty agenda" right about now.
His counsel has two big choices right now, since this is a sixth circuit case.
1. Go all out hard core everyone from his fifth grade teacher to say he was a slow learner to the lady he helped cross the street two years ago. Hope something sways the jury and they cut him a break down to life.
2. Fluff something quick for two hours and two witnesses, and let the appeal team claim ineffective assistance. Right now in the sixth only putting a few folks on, with a list in the file of a whole bunch of possible witnesses, is textbook ineffective.
I would try number two if I was a hard core anti-death guy. I may even try it if I were trying to represent my client to the best of my ability. Obama is not going to swing the sixth to the right during the next seven years.
The problem with number two is if you discuss the course of action with the client, you lose the ineffective. I think you have to discuss it with him under the Ethics Rules. Catch 22, if you follow rules.
16:34 here...
I posted like a newbie in the wrong thread.
Post a Comment