WP: Supreme Court Throws Out Death Sentence (2nd time in a week)

[Pirate Smile]

Supreme Court Throws Out Death Sentence
Justices Void Second Death Penalty Conviction in a Week

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 20, 2005; 5:50 PM

The Supreme Court overturned the sentence of a death row inmate in Pennsylvania today, ruling that his attorneys failed to investigate readily available evidence of child abuse and mental illness that might have persuaded the jury to sentence him to life imprisonment.

The 5 to 4 decision showed that the court continues to actively supervise the performance of defense counsel in capital cases. The majority acknowledged that attorneys for Ronald Rompilla had made some effort to delve into their client's troubled past during his 1988 trial -- but faulted them for failing to dig even deeper.

The court noted that prosecutors twice told the lawyers that they planned to tell the jury about Rompilla's prior rape conviction, yet not until after the second warning did the defense team give even a partial look at the file from that case. The file contained documentation of the beatings and neglect Rompilla suffered as a child, as well as possible schizophrenia. Instead, the lawyers relied only on statements by Rompilla himself, his family and three mental health professionals.

"It flouts prudence to deny that a defense lawyer should try to look at a file he knows the prosecution will cull for aggravating evidence, let alone when the file is sitting in the trial courthouse, open for the asking," Justice David H. Souter wrote in the opinion for the court.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/20/AR2005062000508.html

[Pirate Smile]

1. Bush just can't kill enough people - "Souter's opinion also picked apart

arguments made on behalf of Pennsylvania by the Bush administration, saying that the administration was mistaken to suggest that additional investigation by Rompilla's attorneys was not required because as far as the lawyers knew it was likely to be futile."

[Richard Steele]

3. QUOTE: "...as far as the lawyers knew..."

Isn't that kinda the POINT of 'investigating"?
To take "what you know" FARTHER?

What a PANTLOAD of a legal arguement that is!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

2. Uh oh

This is great. But, the time is fast approaching when the Supremes close down for the summer, and that's when their most powerful (and usually controversial) decisions are announced - just as they all leave town.

That scares me. That's when they put the squeeze on us. This decision (above) just makes me think they're buttering us up.

I've gone completely paranoid where the Supremes are concerned, and my worst fear is that Scalia becomes Chief Justice.

OK, I'm not paranoid.

[Pirate Smile]

5. For some reason, I don't really care about Scalia getting CJ. I'm more

worried about Sandra Day O'Connor retiring and getting replaced by a RW ideologue and extreme social conservative OR Stevens dying(ackkk - that may be my worst fear with regard to the Supreme Court.

I think we can only hope Bush wants to put the first Hispanic on the court and appoints Gonzales. I think he is probably the best we could hope for and the conservatives are fighting that tooth and nail. He isn't conservative enough for them.

[wryter2000]

6. I'm with you

I'm not worried about Rehnquist retiring. Replacing one of the Terrible Trio won't make a lot of difference. But replacing one of the more reasonable justices is a very scary proposition.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. indeed there is always a quid pro quo

so every good decision comes at a (generally terrible) cost.

[Rex]

4. I like Souter, he's turned out to be pretty unbiased.

Although I will never forgive the Felonious Five. Traitors greater there never were!

[chelsea0011]

7. Who follows the court closely? Is Thomas still an unengaged rock?

Wouldn't Thomas as Chief Justice be a trip?

[Warren Stupidity]

9. rock? insult to rocks. n/t

[msanthrope]

10. SOunds like this ruling might set up an overturn of more death sentences

by establishing a bare minimum that defense lawyers should do......although O'Connor concurrence suggests that this case shoudl nto set that precedent. Still, a plurality is a plurality.

Might be useful in Texas....