Skip to main content

View Diary: Why The Death Penalty Should Matter to Progressives (298 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  'Sleeping attorney' case isn't what it seems (0+ / 0-)

    'Sleeping attorney' case isn't what it seems
     Austin American Statesman
     by Dudley Sharp

     The headlines proclaim that defense attorney Joe Cannon slept through significant portions of his client's, Calvin Burdine's, death penalty trial.

    But did he?

    Why did it take 11 years to bring this claim forward? Why did Calvine Burdine not make a sworn statement that he observed his own defense attorney sleeping? And why did Burdine hire that very same attorney for his direct appeal after he received a death sentence?

     Why did the state argue that the attorney was sleeping, but that there was not sufficient error to overturn the case? Because law requires that both the superior appellate courts and the state accept the federal district court's finding of fact that Cannon was asleep, even if they do not believe he was.

     There is often much more to the story than what appears in the headlines and this is no different.

     On June 3 (2002), the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear this case, meaning that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals' 9-5 decision to overturn the case stands.

     A three-judge panel within the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals first heard Burdine's appeal. Quoted below is the 2-judge majority opinion. Following each quote is (my) response.

     "Burdine was represented at trial -- and, at his request, on direct appeal -- by court-appointed counsel, Joe Cannon. . . . Burdine filed a second state habeas application later that month, nearly 11 years after trial, claiming for the first time denial of assistance of counsel because Cannon repeatedly dozed and/or slept at trial."

     Why wait 11 years to file such a claim? Why wait one minute? Why hire your sleeping trial attorney to be your appellate attorney after said sleeping attorney got you a death sentence?

     " . . . the claim was not raised until over 10 years after trial, after it was first raised by another death row inmate."

     It appears that Burdine and his attorneys may not have gotten the idea about the sleeping lawyer claim until after another inmate came up with it. Just a coincidence?

     " . . . we (the Fifth Circuit) are bound by the state habeas court's finding that Cannon slept during trial, even though (Cannon) testified at the state habeas evidentiary hearing that he had not slept; that, instead, he often kept his eyes closed and might nod his head while thinking or concentrating, and that it was possible for someone observing him to think he was sleeping."

     Cannon gives a plausible explanation for his perceived sleeping and such would explain why many did not observe Cannon sleeping. The
     attorney had a history of closing his eyes, often, which many knew about.

     The Harris County attorney who handled the appeal for the state agreed that such was true, but never introduced that evidence and testimony into appeal. (my) position is that the state should have presented the most obvious explanation which would account for Cannon's appearance of sleeping, but which would be evidence that Cannon was not sleeping.

     Had the state presented that evidence, we cannot predict what impact that would have had on U.S. District Judge David Hitner, who made the finding of fact that Cannon was sleeping.

     Not even Burdine, who sat right next to Cannon throughout the trial, ever made a sworn claim to have observed his own attorney sleeping.

     " . . . we (the Fifth Circuit) are troubled, to say the least, by wide-ranging abuses that can result where, as here, a criminal defendant sits next to counsel during trial; makes no mention then of counsel sleeping during trial; requests that the same counsel represent him on direct appeal; and then, over 10 years after trial, claims ineffective assistance because counsel slept during trial, despite defendant never, by affidavit or testimony, stating under oath that counsel engaged in such conduct."

     Three possibilities exist.

    One, Burdine never observed Cannon sleeping and simply made the issue up because another inmate raised such on appeal.

    Two, Burdine did observe Cannon sleeping and decided that a sleeping attorney at trial and using that same lawyer on appeal was the best way to prolong his life by later using such as an appellate issue later.
    Three, Burdine didn't mind that he received the death penalty while his attorney slept through significant portions of the trial -- he liked his sleeping lawyer so much that he hired him for his appeal.

     Also, the two judges on the panel reviewed the trial transcript during the alleged periods of sleeping. They found no reversible error where Cannon failed to object to testimony or the state's presentation.

     If Cannon slept through significant portions of Burdine's trial, should the case have been overturned? The 5th Y.S. Circuit Court of Appeals answered that question "Yes," and the Supreme Court accepted it. But, did Cannon sleep through significant portions, or any portion, of the trial?

     Remember, the state had to accept that Cannon was sleeping, after Hitner's ruling, even if it disagreed with the ruling. So all the state's arguments had to be based upon challenging the overturning of the case because Cannon slept, even if the state didn't believe that he had.

    •  Um, what? (0+ / 0-)

      I'm sure you felt that this was somehow relevant enough to the current discussion that it needing bringing up, but would you care to provide some commentary to explain its relevancy for people who aren't you? Because other than the fact that Burdine was a death sentence case, I'm not sure how this applies to anything. While it certainly smells of shenanigans, there's nothing that intrinsically ties it to the death penalty (it would have been equally plausible, and the result equally silly, had Burdine not been up for the death sentence).

      In other words, yes, it very likely sucks. But to argue that this is evidence in support of the death penalty (presumably that Burdine should have been executed after 7 years, going by your repeated reference to Virginia, and not had a chance to file this appeal) is not exactly self-evident. Or even logical. It speaks to a flaw in the appeals system, and almost certainly should be addressed on that level, lest it be abused by criminals who don't happen to be on death row.

      •  The "sleeping lawyer" was in the article. (0+ / 0-)

        Did you read the article?

        •  I did not make the connection, I admit (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Grizzard's article didn't list the name, and I missed it when rescanning the article early.

          That said, I'm still not sure it proves very much. The very fact that this could be argued convincingly enough to ensure the conviction was overturned indicates something is, at the least, questionable about the judicial procedure that led to it in the first place. That prosecutors were not able to prove their argument indicates a flaw (admittedly more likely with the system as opposed to the people) that does little to assure me of the infallibility of the death penalty sentencing process. But I do apologize, sincerely, for not making the connection and failing to see the relevance.

          •  sean, it proves there is at least two perspectives (0+ / 0-)

            on the case and gives readers a broader picture and can be helpful for a fuller understanding of any given issue.

            Often, in such debates, that is good enough.

            No problem.

            •  It's a valid correction (0+ / 0-)

              It just doesn't, IMO, engender faith in the criminal justice system's ability to make the decision to end a person's life. But I readily admit that isn't the original point either you or Grizzard were attempting to make, and I likely wouldn't have made it unbidden.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site