\nMighty and dreadful, for thou are not so.<\/em><\/p>\n
But in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the more apt words might be<\/p>\n
Of our death penalty system BE NOT PROUD,<\/em><\/p>\n For too many lawyers are not mighty but instead are dreadful<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The proof?\u00a0 The latest Pennsylvania Supreme Court capital case OPINION, Commonwealth v. Reid<\/em> (September 22, 2021).\u00a0 Reid himself was severely mentally ill and suffered from brain damage, conditions that can make an attorney\u2019s task difficult.\u00a0 And Reid in some circumstances limited trial counsels\u2019 choices, a point emphasized by the majority OPINION which affirmed the denial of most of the post-conviction claims it reviewed.\u00a0 But too little is made of counsel\u2019s penalty trial opening statement and closing argument, issues highlighted by the defense.<\/p>\n Consider this.\u00a0 The entirety<\/em> of the penalty trial [the trial after the jury had convicted Reid of two murders and was to decide his fate] opening statement was the following:<\/p>\n Morning. I’ve addressed you twice before and will conclude this proceeding with more lengthy final monologue. At this point all that I can say is at this point once again, please cleanse your minds of any expectations, any predeterminations. Please listen, think, contemplate, ponder, and then impose upon Mr. Reid the appropriate and just sentence in consideration of the facts of the law [sic]. Thank you.<\/p>\n A call to \u201cimpose upon Mr. Reid the appropriate and just sentence\u201d has no guidance whatsoever, and in fact effectively let\u2019s the jury off the hook.\u00a0 A fair argument could be made that this was no opening statement at all, arguably a complete denial of the right to counsel.<\/p>\n It got worse.\u00a0 Admittedly hampered by the client\u2019s decision to not allow psychiatric testimony, a decision itself possibly premised on trial counsel\u2019s misapprehension of law, the closing bemoaned the client\u2019s decision and then concluded as follows:<\/p>\n He’s shown that through the facts he’s done well in the Franklin County Prison for the last two years. That’s all that we have as mitigating circumstances, and it’s up to you to decide whether that outweighs the aggravating circumstances presented by the Commonwealth<\/em>[, i.e., killing of a prosecution witness, killing in perpetration of a felony, and multiple murders].<\/p>\n Leaving it \u201cup to you\u201d to decide offers no guidance, has no persuasive value, and can convey that the attorneys themselves see a death sentence as a reasoned decision.\u00a0 When only one jury need vote for life to prevent the imposition of death, this is again abandonment of the client\u2019s cause and arguably a case\u00a0 – again \u2013 of having no counsel at all at a truly critical stage.<\/p>\n But there is more.\u00a0 The italicized language affirmatively misstated the law and reduced the prosecution burden of proof, a point that even the dissenting Justices missed.\u00a0 In Pennsylvania, death sentences may be returned only when the aggravating factors outweigh<\/em> any mitigating proof.\u00a0 Here counsel stated the opposite, telling the jury that his client\u2019s life depended on mitigating proof outweighing<\/em> aggravating factors.\u00a0 An ineffectual argument, a fundamental misapprehension of law \u2013 and two sentences of death.<\/p>\n One need not be an opponent of the death penalty to expect that the decision of whether to execute a person is reached with the greatest of care and true advocacy.\u00a0 The Reid<\/em> case \u2013 separate from its application of complex legal doctrine in the post-conviction setting \u2013 illustrates yet again that there is and can be no pride in Pennsylvania\u2019s implementation of the death penalty.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The poet John Donne wrote the timeless words Death, be not proud, though some have called thee Mighty and dreadful, for thou are not so. But in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the more apt words might be Of our death penalty system BE NOT PROUD, For too many lawyers are not mighty but instead are<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":31,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"generate_page_header":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,6,11],"tags":[],"coauthors":[238],"class_list":["post-3221","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-advocacy-and-evidence-blog","category-criminal-law","category-trial-advocacy"],"yoast_head":"\n![\"Less](\"https:\/\/external-content.duckduckgo.com\/iu\/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usnews.com%2Fcmsmedia%2F9c%2F74%2F5dc4b8144deb92c92b609ddb491c%2F161003-deathpenalty-editorial.jpg&f=1&nofb=1\")
<\/p>\n