Criminal Court Closes PROMPTLY at 5 - No Exceptions!

Criminal Court Closes at Five - Even When Life is at Stake By: Gerri L. Elder Have you ever walked up to the post office door and yanked on it, only to find it locked at 5:01pm? That's how it goes, closing time means closing time. People who work for the government have busy lives, and much more important things to do than to stay open to mail your letter, or possibly even save your life. As infuriating as it is to arrive in what you think is 'just in time' to find an office locked up for the day, for most people it is not a matter of life or death. However, for one Texas inmate, it was just that. His life was on the line. On the morning of September 25, the US Supreme Court announced that it would agree to review an appeal by two Kentucky death row inmates who are challenging the legality of death by lethal injection. On that same day, Michael Richard, who was on death row in Texas, was scheduled to die by lethal injection at 6pm. He had been convicted of the 1986 rape and murder of a woman and was sentenced to the death penalty for the crimes. When Richard's criminal defense attorneys heard the announcement by the US Supreme Court that morning, they went into overdrive and drafted an appeal, on Richard's behalf, to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The court is the state's highest court for criminal law cases. As fate would have it, a computer malfunction slowed Richard's criminal defense attorneys down that day. At 4:50pm they called the court to let them know what was happening, that they intended to file the appeal and that their client was scheduled to die by lethal injection at 6pm. They asked that the court remain open until 5:20pm so that the appeal could be filed, and possibly save their client's life, even of only for a little while. Reportedly, an unsympathetic clerk told them plainly, "We close at five." Since they could not get the cooperation of the local court, Richard's lawyers took their case to the Supreme Court, because the Supreme Court stays open for executions. By filing the appeal with the Supreme Court, the lawyers were able to stall the execution for several hours. However, since the appeal was not able to be filed first with the local court, it was rejected in Washington. So, as a result of the local court not staying open for an extra 20 minutes due to the unusual circumstances Richard's lawyers faced that day, the man was executed and pronounced dead at 8:23pm. Texas has not executed another inmate since September 25th. A leading daily newspaper in Texas, the Dallas Morning News, was outraged by the court's decision not to stay open for Richard's appeal. The paper ran a scathing editorial titled, "We Closed at 5". The editorial read, in part, "Hastening the death of a man, even a bad one, because office personnel couldn't be bothered to bend bureaucratic procedure was a breathtakingly petty act and evinced a relish for death that makes the blood of decent people run cold." Texas has put to death more than 400 people since the reinstatement of the death penalty in the country in 1976. Update: The Guardian Unlimited reports that, as of early November, Texas will accept emergency email appeals in death row cases. The decision came only two weeks after nearly 300 lawyers signed a petition demanding this practice. Since the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear the case concerning the constitutionality of lethal injection, no inmates in the United States besides Michael Richard have been executed. The information I am posting comes from the Web or Hassett and Associates P.A. If you would like to learn more about us go to www.criminaldefense.cc.

Prison, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court

Is Prison Overcrowding is Unconstitutional? By: Gerri L Elder The decision of a three-judge panel in San Francisco could result in the release of more than 50,000 California prison inmates. The state's prison system is in crisis because of severe overcrowding and federal pressure to improve medical and living conditions. The judges will decide if the overcrowding violates the constitutional right against cruel and unusual punishment. The New York Times reported that the 33 adult prisons in California now house nearly double the inmates they were designed to hold. Criminal defense attorneys for the inmates say that the crowded conditions lead to increased violence, disease outbreaks, deaths and inadequate mental and health care services. According to The Mercury News, on Dec. 4 defense attorneys asked the judges to order the state to release about 52,000 of the current 156,300 inmates over the next two years. One of the judges on the panel, Lawrence Karlton of Federal District Court, noted during the hearing that the court has been asked to hand down a serious order that would interfere with California's right to handle state affairs. However, Karlton also voiced concern about the state's failure to provide adequate care for the inmates. Lawyers for the state argue that the release of nearly one-third of the state's prison inmates would cause an increase in crime and would burden counties that already have tight budgets. Matthew Cate, secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, said he had seen reports indicating that California's inmates generally had more felony offenses than inmates in other states. The release of more than 50,000 of these inmates would be a danger to public safety. Cate told The New York Times that the most serious problem in California prisons is the lack of appropriate space for mentally ill inmates, and the release of inmates would not correct the situation. Michael Bien, a lawyer for the inmates, said overcrowded prisons are dangerous for prisoners and also puts corrections officers and the public in danger. Defense lawyers for the inmates do not propose the release of dangerous criminals. The state could achieve much of the necessary reduction to the prison population by not sending people with minor parole violations back to prison. In August, a court-appointed federal receiver in charge of bringing the California prison system into compliance with the constitution announced that it would take $8 billion to build facilities and fix the prison system. However, California has a budget crisis, and it is unlikely that funding will be available. At the hearing, Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated the obvious by saying, "We should start from the premise that there's not going to be any more money spent on this problem." A decision in the case is not expected until 2009. The special three-judge panel is acting for the first time under a 1995 federal law designed to limit the judiciary's power in inmate rights cases. Any order to release prisoners would almost certainly face an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The information I am posting comes from the Web or Hassett and Associates P.A. If you would like to learn more about us go to www.criminaldefense.cc.