News & Developments

Supreme Court Finds Right to Appellate Council for Indigent Defendants Entering Guilty or Nolo Contendere Pleas

On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution require States to provide counsel for indigent criminal defendants in all first-level appeals, including defendants who enter guilty or nolo contendere pleas. Halbert v. Michigan, No. 03-10198. The right to appointed appellate counsel is not waived by the defendant’s plea. The Court reasoned that a state’s interest in reducing its judiciary’s workload, the purported reason for the denial of counsel, could be furthered by appointed counsel’s filing of comprehensible applications for review. Read the decision [PDF] »

In February 2005, the Council voted to support the request of the Criminal Justice Standards Project for an ABA amicus curiae brief in Halbert. An ABA amicus brief [PDF] was filed on February 22, 2005.

The right to appellate counsel in a first appeal was raised in an earlier case, Kowalski v. Tesmer, __ U.S. __, 125 S. Ct. 564 (2004), but the Supreme Court decided that case on unrelated standing grounds. An ABA amicus brief [PDF], supported by the Section of Litigation, was filed in Kowalski.

Supreme Court Finds Ineffective Assistance of Council at Death Penalty Phase of Trial — Justice Souter Cites ABA Standards

On June 20, 2005, relying on ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, the Supreme Court reversed a death sentence on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. Rompilla v. Beard, No. 04-5462, slip op. at 11-13 & n.6,7. The Court found that Mr. Rompilla’s counsel was ineffective because they failed to examine his court file of prior felony convictions that they knew the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania intended to rely on to establish the defendant’s violent character. This failure was prejudicial because it would have suggested a range of mitigation leads, including an extremely dysfunctional childhood, a history of mental and emotional impairment, debilitating alcoholism, and a low IQ. Read the decision [PDF] »

In October 2004, the Council voted to support the application of the ABA Death Penalty Representation Project for an amicus curiae brief in Rompilla. The ABA amicus brief, filed on November 12, 2004, discusses extensive ABA policy pertaining to effective assistance of counsel in criminal cases, standards for criminal justice and model rules of professional conduct.

Last year, the Section of Litigation supported and the ABA filed an amicus curiae brief in Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003), another capital case involving ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase. The Wiggins decision, cited in Rompilla, relied on ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Counsel in Death Penalty Cases, first adopted by the House of Delegates in 1989 and updated in 2003.

Supreme Court Dismisses Death Penalty Cases Involving Mexican Nationals: Medellin v. Dretke, No. 04-5928 (U.S. Sup. Ct.)

On May 23, 2005, the Supreme Court dismissed, as “improvidently granted,” the appeal of Jose Medellin, a Mexican citizen on death row in Texas who contended that he and 51 other Mexicans on death row were denied their rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The Vienna Convention requires that, upon their arrest, foreign nationals be informed of their rights to have their consular officers notified of their detentions, to communicate with their consular officers and to have the consulate arrange for legal representation.

In December 2004, the Council of the Section of Litigation voted to support the application of the ABA Death Penalty Representation Project for an amicus curiae brief in Medellin. The brief [PDF] was filed on January 24, 2005, and the case was argued on March 28, 2005.

In an unsigned per curiam opinion [PDF] (with numerous dissenting opinions), the Court dismissed, as premature, the appeal of Mr. Medellin. The Court cited the concession by the Bush Administration, made in an amicus curiae brief filed on February 28, 2005, in which the President agreed to instruct state courts to provide new hearings to the Mexican nationals on death row. The Court reserved the right to hear the appeal again.

Supreme Court Finds Death Penalty for Children Under Age 18 Unconstitutional

On March 1, 2005, the United States Supreme Court held that the execution of a juvenile offender who is older than 15 but younger than 18 at the time of commission of a capital offense is impermissible under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Roper v. Simmons [PDF], No. 03-633 (U.S. Sup. Ct.). This decision overrules Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989). Applying a rationale similar to that applied to mentally retarded capital offenders in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), the Court found that evolving standards of decency, nationally and internationally, demonstrate that the death penalty is a disproportionate punishment for juveniles under the age of 18 who do not possess the necessary moral culpability.

The ABA filed an amicus curiae brief [PDF] in Roper that was co-sponsored by the Section of Litigation, the Death Penalty Representation Project, the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities and the Criminal Justice Section. The ABA’s brief argued against the death penalty, citing the absence of moral culpability by juvenile offenders and the growing national and international concensus against the death penalty for such offenders.

The ABA has a long-standing policy opposing, in principle, the imposition of capital punishment upon any person for any offense committed under the age of 18. In February 1997, the House of Delegates adopted a resolution calling upon jurisdictions that impose capital punishment not to carry out such sentences unless specified precautions are undertaken, including rejection of capital punishment for mentally retarded persons or persons who are under the age of 18 at the time of commission of the capital offense.