|
Supreme
Court Denies Death Penalty Appeal
Convicted
Murderer Claimed Lawyer Failed to Put on Effective Defense
By
Charles Lane
The
Supreme Court today refused to consider the appeal of a convicted
Tennessee murderer who claimed that he received the death penalty
because his lawyer failed to put an effective case before the jury
that sentenced him.
As
usually happens when the court turns down appeals, the court's order
included no explanation or published dissent.
Abu-Ali
Abdur'Rahman had been convicted of killing a drug dealer and leaving
a butcher knife in the back of another victim during a 1986 robbery.
At the time of Abdur'Rahman's crime, he had recently been released
from prison where he served time for a previous homicide. Attorneys
for Abdur'Rahman had regarded his appeal as an opportunity for the
court to revisit the question of how adequately capital murder
defendants are served by their lawyers, who are often poorly-paid,
court-appointed local attorneys.
Abdur'Rahman's
appellate attorneys asserted that his responsibility for the
killings is mitigated by his history of severe child abuse and
mental illness, including repeated hospitalization and suicide
attempts, but that this evidence was not introduced at his trial or
sentencing hearing. They produced affidavits from several jurors
saying they might have spared him if they had known more about his
troubled background. Their case was supported in friend-of-the-court
briefs from prominent law professors led by Laurence Tribe of
Harvard.
Abdur'Rahman's
appeals failed in state court, but a federal district court voided
his death sentence in April 1998. A federal appeals court reinstated
it last year, giving rise to the appeal to the Supreme Court that
was turned aside today.
The
court of appeals that reinstated Abdur'Rahman's death sentence noted
that the evidence about his past would have either made no
difference in the outcome of his case or, possibly, harmed him.
"In particular, the supplemental evidence contained a
description of [Abdur'Rahman's] motive for killing a fellow prison
inmate and a history of violent character traits," the court
said. Two Supreme Court justices have expressed doubt about the
administration of capital punishment in the United States.
"I
have yet to see a death case among the dozens coming to the Supreme
Court on eve-of-execution applications in which the defendant was
well represented at trial," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in
a speech in April.
Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor suggested in July that the country may need
minimum standards for lawyers who represent people facing the death
penalty.
"I
have to acknowledge that serious questions are being raised about
whether the death penalty is being fairly administered in this
country," O'Connor said.
But
neither justice commented publicly on today's decision, so it is
impossible to know what they thought about it. It would have taken
the votes of four of the nine justices to agree to hear the case.
Today's
decision is "certainly a setback for people who, based on O'Connor's
comments, thought that the court would be more aggressive in looking
at the death penalty," said Washington attorney Tom Goldstein,
who handled Abdur'Rahman's appeal.
He
speculated that the court may have decided not to hear the case
because the specific legal issues presented in the case had not
generated conflicting rulings among lower courts.
"It is very easy in these cases to Monday-morning
quarterback the defense lawyer, especially with evidence that cuts
both ways," said Kent S. Scheidegger, legal director of the
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, which supports capital punishment.
"That is why the Supreme Court only allows sentences to be
overturned where a supposed error made a real difference. That
standard is correct and was properly applied in this case."
Goldstein said that he will file new motions in the lower courts. No
execution date for Abdur'Rahman has been set.
|
- 
