One of the most perversely bizarre stories I’ve seen, culminating in the execution of Willie McNair, this is an example of how the levels of failures resulted in the execution of one man. It’s stories like this that make me disgusted by those whose biggest complaint about the law is that they don’t get enough “me” time.
Willie McNair was executed last week after courts refused to review the trial judge’s decision to sentence him to death even though the jury decided he should be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.
McNair was convicted after his first trial based on “illegal evidence, inflammatory comments, and name-calling,” bad enough that even an Alabama appeals court reversed the conviction and sent it back for retrial.
At the second and final sentencing, the jury returned a verdict of life imprisonment without possibility of parole. The trial judge, without explanation, rejected the jury’s verdict and sentenced Mr. McNair to death.
Alabama, apparently, is the only state in the nation where a judge can reject the jury’s sentencing decision and order execution on his own.
In 2004, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama found that Mr. McNair’s death sentence was unconstitutional because his trial lawyers – who knew what had happened at the first trial – nonetheless failed at the second trial to present crucial information that would have explained the crime and persuaded the judge to follow the jury’s life verdict.
The problem here was that McNair’s indigent defenders were limited to $1,000 for out-of-court work, and claimed they couldn’t manage to do the work needed within the budget. This is clearly a two-part failure, from the state’s ridiculous low limit for out-of-court work in a death case to the defense lawyers absolute failure to provide effective assistance, compensation notwithstanding. So the criminal defense lawyers were prepared to let a man die because they weren’t paid enough? Don’t get me started.
People who had known Willie McNair his whole life testified that such behavior was highly out of character for him and that he was held in extremely high esteem in his community. Expert witnesses explained that this offense would not have happened but for Mr. McNair’s tragic and severe substance addiction.
The federal court found that Mr. McNair’s lawyers failed to fulfill their constitutional duty to represent him effectively, and vacated his death sentence.
One of the primary mitigating factors in a death case is aberrant behavior. But of course, if you don’t present the mitigating factors, then it doesn’t exist. Well done, fellows. Are you proud of yourselves?
But the district court’s decision was reversed on appeal, not because it was inherently wrong, but based upon the procedural flaw of presenting evidence at the hearing that was neither new nor unavailable at the trial. It’s unclear why this wasn’t permitted as evidence of ineffective assistance, rather than in mitigation of the sentence, but it was rejected nonetheless.
And this is really the best system there is? Tell it to Willie McNair.
H/T Lee Stonum
But the district court’s decision was reversed on appeal, not because it was inherently wrong, but based upon the procedural flaw of presenting evidence at the hearing that was neither new nor unavailable at the trial. It’s unclear why this wasn’t permitted as evidence of ineffective assistance, rather than in mitigation of the sentence, but it was rejected nonetheless.
That ruling was reversed by a federal appeals court on procedural grounds. The appeals court did not disagree with the findings about the poor quality of Mr. McNair’s legal representation, but held that the federal trial court should not have allowed additional evidence to be presented in federal court.McNair sought leave to appeal to both the Alabama Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court. Both turned him away. On May 14, 2009, Willie McNair was put to death by lethal injection.
And this is really the best system there is? Tell it to Willie McNair.
H/T Lee Stonum
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
These are always terrible stories. It’s worse when they are relatively obscure, like this one was. One gets the impression that almost every execution is treated to a great deal of news coverage, but I don’t remember hearing or reading anything about this one.
I think you’re putting too much blame on the defense lawyers. A $1000 cap on an important case is simply an unequivocal social decision that we don’t give a damn.
The federal courts as a rule have absolutely no respect for procedural bars – except when they want to, in which case they magically become insurmountable barriers to relief. If the government or some other establishment litigant wants them to get around a procedural hurdle, they’ll fall all over themselves to do it; but the incentives are completely different when it comes to some poor slob sentenced to death.
Ever notice how when there’s a wrongful conviction, there’s always a lot of talk about the defense lawyers not doing their job? The police, the prosecutors, the judge and the jury pretty much get a pass. But when there’s a “wrongful acquittal”, like the OJ Simpson case is perceived to be, everyone gets blamed.
So voting to convict is safer and better for everyone, except of course the defendant. But then who cares about him, especially after we convict him?
Doesn’t that amount to at least one explanation why it seems so easy to get convictions?
Statements like this disgust me. No, I’m not puting too much blame on defense lawyers. Only a worthless human being would fail to defend his client from execution because there wasn’t enough money in it. Once you take on the responsibility of defending another human being, lack of funding is no excuse for ineffective assistance. No, I am not putting too much blame on defense lawyers.
AAARGH…Talk about a textbook example of everything that is wrong with the death penalty. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident, but one of things that really upsets me is that this is the first I’ve heard of this case. I follow a lot of sources, and I haven’t seen anyone talk about this. Why is that??
I don’t think you can give a pass to the lawyers, but I also don’t think we put enough blame on the courts. The system is designed to deny relief; that’s fine in the vast majority of cases, which are no doubt frivolous. But courts seem to have lost sight of the fact that are worthy cases – and its their job to catch them. They take cover in all the procedural hurdles, and I’m sure think they are “just doing their job”. I don’t know anything about this case, but if even half of the facts are accurate, the courts knew there was a problem – and simply looked the other way.
I don’t know how we do it, but at some point we have to hold judges accountable also. I’m a firm believer in the idea that they are going to have eventually account for their actions; personally, I don’t think “I was just following the law” gets you pass at the final judgment.
As for the lawyers, you have no business taking on a case unless you are wiling to go all the way. In state like this, that means you know you are basically bankrupting yourself – at least in the short term. When I was younger I handled my share of capital cases; each time I said that was my last, and I finally kept my word. We need a better system though, and in my opinion that’s an office devoted to capital litigation – where the lawyers don’t have to worry about juggling their practice to keep the doors open.
Thanks for bring this out. Even if it did raise my blood pressure on a Saturday morning. Time to go work in the yard I guess.
Gosh I didn’t mean to disgust anyone.
I basically agree with you. I guess I should have said “too much blame relative to the other players”. But certainly, it’s a profession, not simply a business, and there are many times you have to take an economic hit, and it’s blameworthy if you don’t.
Of course, $1000 to defend a capital case is not simply an “economic hit”; if you’re going to do the job properly, it’s a one way ticket to the poor house. In fact, it’s so economically crippling that it almost insures ineffective assistance for that reason alone. You can’t be an effective advocate if you can’t eat.
And I also have to offer in mitigation that the overwhelming likelihood is that nothing the defense lawyers did would have made any difference. The trial judge basically wanted to kill the defendant, obviously. When that’s the case, it doesn’t really matter how effective or even brilliant you are.
Mitigation, not absolution. I agree that even with all that going against you, you have to pull out all the stops. It’s a nightmare, but that’s why lawyers are so highly regarded, right?
Don’t mind me. I’m easily disgusted. There is blame here for everyone, and I do not give “my own” a pass when I wouldn’t give it to the cops, the courts or anyone else. We all have responsibilities to do right.
The problem with the $1,000 limit being an excuse is not intended to absolve the state from its duty to provide adequate money to defend, but that it also does not absolve lawyers who have undertaken a duty to fall short. If you don’t want the trip to the poorhouse, than refuse the case. If they can’t find a lawyer willing to take it, then they can’t convict and execute. No one forces a lawyer to take an “economically crippling” case. But once you take it, then it is your duty to do it right. Of course, there will always be some scoundrel somewhere willing to take the grand and lay down on his client. That’s why he’s the scoundrel.
As for whether it would have made a difference, I have no idea, but I refuse to assume away the problem. Regardless of whether it would make a difference, we do the job right.
I am also shocked that the only way I heard about this (I passed it to Scott) was a forwarded e-mail. This should have been front page national news.
Everyone misses the point by blaming the lawyers. I am sure they could have done a lot better, but they persuaded a jury to sentence Willie McNair to life. In any other state in the country he would be alive today, but the judge (who is elected and faced reelection in a part of the country where the death penalty and religion decide elections) overturned their verdict. The only way McNair’s lawyers could have persuaded that judge not to kill him would be to make the judge forget about the next election.