Posted on 08/18/2002 6:15:47 AM PDT by Pharmboy
A judge in a small, poor Ohio county told prosecutors there this month that they could not seek the death penalty in the murder of a college student because the county's share of the defense costs would be too great.
The decision, which experts say is the first of its kind, is a rare judicial acknowledgment of the powerful role money plays in death penalty cases.
"The law acknowledges that capital cases are different and require enhanced due process, for obvious reasons," Judge Jeffrey L. Simmons of the Court of Common Pleas in Vinton County wrote.
Noting that such cases "require additional resources," the judge added: "While the court has authority to approve expenses, it would be disingenuous to suggest that a trial judge can consider such requests without an awareness of the financial impact on this county. The court finds that the potential impact of financial considerations could compromise the defendant's due process rights in a capital murder trial."
The defendant, Gregory McKnight, is accused of killing Emily Murray in 2000. Ms. Murray, then 20, was a student at Kenyon College in Gambier, Ohio. She had been missing for a month when her body was discovered in Mr. McKnight's trailer, 80 miles away in Ray, Ohio, south of Columbus.
Mr. McKnight, 25, has also been charged with a second murder, in which the death penalty has not been sought. He was convicted of another killing as a juvenile in 1991 and served six years. He is now in prison on a burglary charge.
K. Robert Toy, who represents Mr. McKnight, said that his side's cost to try the case might amount to $75,000. With appeals and other postconviction litigation, total defense costs could reach $350,000, Mr. Toy said.
The state and county split defense costs roughly 50-50.
Michael M. Bledsoe, the president of the Vinton County Board of Commissioners, said the judge was right about the financial impact of the case but wrong to usurp the board's decision.
The county, Mr. Bledsoe said, has a population of about 13,000 and an annual budget of $2.7 million. "There's not a lot of money there, but still we're a can-do county," he said.
Mr. Bledsoe said the county financed the prosecutions of "four or five" murders last year. "It did throw hardship on the county," he said, "but we scraped by."
Mr. McKnight's case, though, is the only capital murder case in Vinton County in recent memory.
"In my position, I'm willing to stand behind what they want to do," Mr. Bledsoe said, referring to the prosecutors and the grand jury. "If they need the money, we'll find it."
On Wednesday, prosecutors asked Judge Simmons to reconsider and filed an appeal.
"What the judge is saying is that there's a death penalty in Ohio but not in Vinton County," said Joe Case, a spokesman for the attorney general's office. "There is nothing in the law that would allow the judge to dismiss the death penalty components of the charges. The people have a right to prosecute the case."
Judge Simmons was also mistaken about the financial impact of the case, Mr. Case said. "Regardless of whether it's a death penalty trial or just a murder trial, the cost is roughly going to be in the same ballpark," he said.
Gregory W. Meyers, the chief counsel in the death penalty division of the state public defender's office, disagreed. "There's a lot of procedural rigmarole that applies only in death penalty cases," Mr. Meyers said.
Capital defendants are entitled to two lawyers, while others get one. Jury selection is more complicated, as lawyers are entitled to inquire closely into jurors' views on the death penalty. Sequestering the jury during deliberations is required in capital cases and optional in others.
Most important, Mr. Meyers said, "The simple thudding reality is that for death penalty cases there are two potential trials: the trial phase and the penalty phase."
At the same time, he acknowledged that defense lawyers make cases as expensive as they can, within the bounds of the law, in the hope that financial issues will cause prosecutors to accept a lesser plea.
"One of the tools of defense lawyers is to work the bank," he said. "Sometimes you know darn well that what you're doing is grinding them down. There are many cases where, at the margin, a nondeath plea is on the table because of money."
Cynthia Murray of Cold Spring, N.Y., is Emily Murray's mother. She said the main problem with Judge Simmons's ruling was not obvious.
Ohio law contemplates life without parole as a possible sentence only where the death penalty is also in play. "If this judge's ruling stands and he's charged with only aggravated murder, the penalty would be only 20 or 30 years to life," Ms. Murray said. "I don't care if McKnight is put to death or not, but there should not be the slightest possibility that he will ever be free. I don't want to think about it 20 years from now that he should be walking around."
She added: "The worst thing that could ever happen has happened to us. I just want McKnight to be put away forever and ever."
The appeals process is the problem.
I live just east of there and there should be no good excuse for this. I say, if the defense loses the case at trial, the appeals process should have a smaller price tag on it. Lawyers who are no better than that don't deserve to keep charging top dollar after a conviction and if they DO, give them the needle as well!
In other words, appointed lawyers are not willing to file frivilous appeals that cost his firm a few thousand dollars in time and costs, when he is only going to collect 1/4 of that. Plus we are not reimbursed for long distance or collect calls from the prison, mileage, travel time. We have to eat all that. We try to give the best defense we can with no frills.
See my post #7.
You are suggesting that the lawyer should be executed with his client if he loses the case? I suppose if the defendant is found guilty, then the prosecutors should also be put to death? They are lawyers too.
Your idea of justice is similar to the Chinese judicial system.
We had a fellow in jail here in SC that was falsely jailed for being the "Gaffney Stangler" back somewhere in the 60's .Fortunately the real killer ,LeRoy Martin,didn't like someone getting credit for his work.LeRoy basically confessed.LeRoy Martin didn't make it to the chair ,for his cell-mate killed him.
The point was that the sentiment on this thread is to bash the lawyers. Lawyers do not get paid $200 an hour to defend indigent clients in appointed cases. South Carolina is currently paying $50 per hour. When you have to make a minimum of $10,000 per month to meet payroll, taxes, insurance, rent...you can't make a living off court appointed cases. However, you have as much an ethical duty to indigent clients as you do to clients who write you a check. One woman suggested that the lawyer should be put to death for losing (I guess for wasting tax dollars). The prosecutors who lose are paid with tax dollars as well, however, they are paid a salary by the taxpayers, along with health insurance and the taxpayer funded offices they work in.
The appeals process is dictated by state law...not the lawyers. In SC, death penalty cases carry automatic appeal. The appointed lawyer that represented the defendant at trial will not necessarily be appointed to the appeal. Thus the idea that a lawyer would lose just so he can get paid for an appeal (at $50 an hour) is ludicrous.
I'm not saying there aren't scoundrel lawyers. However most that I know are hardworking people who care about what they do. And lawyers are the only thing we have to ensure that our rights are protected when we are faced with prosecution. I have seen people who thought they could represent themselves get nailed to the wall because they don't know their rights. Unfortunately the general public can't educate themselves as to every nuance of every law and are dependent on those who specialize in this area.
For the lawyer bashers, if you are ever falsely accused, I wish you much luck representing yourself.
Excuse me, Miss, but have you ever even read Shakespeare? If you had, then you would know that the term "First we must kill all the lawyers..." is taken from a plan, not to restore order to society, but throw society into chaos, in a plot for revolution. By removing those who could defend the rights of peons, like you for instance, then tyranny could reign free and resistors could be eliminated without the nuisance of trial or due process.
The phrase is actually William Shakespeare's tribute to lawyers and his recognition of the important role they play in society. Your "idea of justice" is nowhere similar to Shakespeare's. I suggest you read the play.
If they do, why are those who were not sentenced to death, whose guilt is presumably less certain than that of those who were, not receive the same level of care in their cases?
And if they don't, why waste the money on them at all?
Okay, so he had the right idea but for the wrong reason. >:*3
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.