Vinson's Execution Set for 27 April
That is one week from today... and it's a case you should be concerned about.
From the Virginia Catholic Conference:Archbishop Pietro Sambi, Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, has sent a letter to Governor Tim Kaine on behalf of the Vatican, to request that Dexter Lee Vinson's death sentence be commuted to life in prison without parole. Arlington Bishop Paul Loverde and Richmond Bishop Francis DiLorenzo are making this request as well. Here is the PDF of the Circuit Court of Appeals amended opinion filed February 2006:Dexter Lee Vinson appeals the denial of his federal habeas petition, in which he sought relief from a death sentence. We granted a certificate of appealability on three issues: (1) whether the district court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on Vinson’s claim that his trial counsel operated under an unconstitutional conflict of interest; (2) whether Vinson was denied effective assistance of counsel; and (3) whether the state failed to disclose material exculpatory evidence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the district court’s denial of habeas relief. I'd encourage everyone concerned with the death penalty to read this and judge for yourself whether the appellate court decision follows.
The penalty of death is a final penalty, reserved for the most heinous of crimes and for the most guilty of offenders. Adolf Hitler gets the death penalty. Charles Manson gets the death penalty. Joseph Stalin gets the death penalty, etc.
Dexter Lee Vinson does not and did not believe he received adequate legal representation. Reading the decision, it doesn't seem as if the court disagrees with this statement -- but rather it hinges it's argument on a legal semantic: Vinson’s conflict of interest claim arises from the undisputed fact that during his trial, Vinson’s "second chair" counsel, Tanya Lomax, was suing Vinson’s lead counsel, John Underwood, for employment discrimination that had allegedly occurred during Lomax’s employment at the Portsmouth Public Defender’s Office. Vinson contends that the separate employment litigation between Lomax and Underwood adversely affected his representation in two ways: first, Lomax suffered health problems resulting from the stress of the litigation; and second, the way Underwood and Lomax divided the work and responsibilities of his case into distinct guilt and sentencing phases left Lomax inadequately supervised by Underwood.
...
Rather than relying on evidence not "reasonably available" to him "at the time of the state proceeding," Vinson instead "point[s] to evidence" that he clearly "knew about" at the time of his trial. Prior to trial Lomax informed Vinson of the facts giving rise to the asserted conflict, and Vinson consented to representation by "conflicted" counsel. In a sworn, written waiver, Vinson explicitly stated that "[w]ith full knowledge and understanding of Attorney Lomax’s complaint and disclosure, I freely and voluntarily give my consent to have Attorney Lomax continue to represent me in the above-styled matter." In Vinson’s presence, defense counsel then presented Vinson’s waiver to the trial court. In light of this waiver, it is plain that the facts of the alleged conflict between Lomax and Underwood were not only available to Vinson, but were specifically presented to him for his consideration and consent. His voluntary, knowing, and informed decision to continue with Lomax as his counsel precludes any argument that a factor external to the defense caused the procedural default. Vinson thus does not depend on facts that could not have been previously discovered, and he cannot establish cause to overcome the procedural bar. That my friends, is wrong. It's the law forgetting it's responsibility to be just for the sake of being consistent.
Dexter Lee Vinson deserves relief and a commutation of his sentence to life imprisonment. Governor Kaine can be contacted by phone at (804)786-2211, or if you prefer electronic communication the Virginia Catholic Conference gives you the opportunity to send an e-mail.
If you've never felt strongly on this issue, now is the time. Just five minutes of you day can literally do justice and save a man's life.
|
 |
James Young 
10 Comments:
Instead, we have a system that ensures full disclosure and informed consent. The defendent CHOSE, for whatever reason, to have these men represent him.
If we had denied him that representation on the basis of a conflict he was willing to waive, and the trial had the same result, we certainly would be here now saying he should be spared because he was denied the counsel of his choice.
Gentlemen, I am not arguing against the death penalty as an instrument of law.
What I do emphatically argue against is it's propriety, it's excessive overuse as a deterrent, and it's application in cases where - very clearly - the defendant did not receive proper representation.
What makes this even more odious is that the opinion here willingly admits that Vinson's representation failed him, but oh... he signed a waiver...
Is the law just? Or is it consistent for consistency's sake?
That's the real question here.
I'm not asking for legal gymnastics to resolve this issue, but can Governor Kaine (or anyone) in good conscience sit across from this man 5 minutes before his execution and show no mercy?
I couldn't.
I understand your point about "proper representation," but defendants are also entitled to the representation of their choice, not some theoretical "proper representation." Regrettably, I think your argument here has no substance.
Perhaps I'm wrong?
What it cites is that waiver.
Now as an attorney, I would like to think that if I knew I couldn't adequately represent my client, I would not take the case.
Furthermore, as a system we have a responsibility to ensure those who represent clients do so in an ethical and consistent manner.
I don't beleive (and from what I can gather from the PDF, neither does the court) that Vinson received good legal representation.
Given the gravity of the penalty (death), the question of guilt doesn't come into play -- that is where the waiver would hold as a defense. Vinson had his chance, he signed it away.
But when it comes to the gravity of the punishment inflicted... I personally believe Vinson deserves relief.
This isn't a question of guilt. It is a question of propriety. Does the crime and it's circumstances deserve the most extreme penalty Virginia can inflict on a lawbreaker?
You're applying a higher standard than that required by the Constitution. The State is bound only by the Constitution, and I see no justification for frustrating the jury verdict to satisfy some extra-constitutional idea of "good" representation.
I think it's more a question as to whether or not he received competent or adequate representation.
Now Vinson may be able to sign his rights away. But the attorney has his part of the bargain to fulfill as well...
Now all of this is immaterial to the result. Vinson was found guilty, he waived his right to a better attorney, etc.
BUT
Knowing Vinson did not receive competent or adequate legal representation, can we be 100% certain that inflicting a penalty (1) designed to eliminate those who are destructive to society, and (2) show no intent of reform?
The death penalty is serious business, and morally should be reserved for the most heinious and cruelest of offenders.
When there is a ray of doubt -- as there is in Vinson's case -- it's my personal opinion that the Governor has a responsibility to maintain the effacacy and gravity of the death penalty. Here we have a case where that ray of doubt (and frankly, injustice) exists. In this case, the Governor has just as much responsibility to apply what is just.
Does justice truly demand the execution of Dexter Vinson, a man who did not receive a fair trial?
I argue that the Governor has the authority to impose what is just here, as granted by law. In this case, Kaine should exercise that authority.
Post a Comment
Home