Terry Lenamon on the Death Penalty : Lawyer & Attorney Terry Lenamon on Capital Punishment Defense, Death Penalty Trials & Appeals | Law Firm

Representing clients facing the sentence of dying by the government's hand for crimes they have allegedly committed is what I do.  And, while I represent clients in both phases of a death penalty case, I am particularly known for my work in representing defendants during the sentencing phase. 

So, I'm watching Wood v. Allen with particular interest as it winds its way through review by the highest court in the land.

By way of background, a man named Holly Wood was convicted in an Alabama court of killing his girlfriend.   He was sentenced to die for this act.  Mr. Wood was represented by defense counsel, and Mr. Wood is now arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the trial because one of his trial lawyers failed to introduce key evidence during the sentencing phase of the trial. 

What was that crucial evidence?  It was evidence of a mitigating factor to be considered in Mr. Wood's sentencing -- that he was mentally retarded. 

Holly Wood had three lawyers during the trial, but like many death penalty cases the defense duties were divided, and it's uncontested here that the lawyer responsible for the sentencing phase of the case was a novice.   And here is where things get complicated.

As Mr. Wood's case manuevered through the waters of the state appellate process, his appellate counsel argued that this novice attorney did not provide adequate representation -- and all the state reviewing courts failed to agree.  Instead, they held that Wood's more experienced counsel intentionally withheld the mental retardation evidence as part of their overall trial strategy. 

Entering the federal appellate system under a writ for habeas corpus under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), the federal district court went Wood's way and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, opining that that the AEDPA limits review to "...whether there is evidence to support the state courts' findings" and the Alabama court's fact finding was reasonable since Wood failed to show that the defense decision not to present the evidence was not strategic.   Of course, there was a strong dissent which wisely pointed out that the Eleventh Circuit opinion was based upon nothing but "pure speculation" that not presenting key mitigating evidence was a "strategic decision."

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

At this point, it's pretty late in the legal game for John Muhammad, known as The Washington Sniper.  Tried and sentenced to death for the killing of Dean Meyers, the victim of a sniper's bullet at a Manassas, Virginia gas station in 2002, Muhammad has already exhausted appellate avenues aside from the United States Supreme Court.  His attorneys have announced they'll be filing an appeal with the Supreme Court on or before November 3rd.

Asking for Clemency Now Rather than Later

Usually, going to the Governor with a clemency request wouldn't happen until all the court remedies had been exhausted.  With the Washington Sniper, the strategy is different.  Already, his attorneys have met with Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine -- and they've shown the governor a video prepared to support their position.

Mental Illness as a Bar to the Death Penalty

There is already precedent from the United States Supreme Court (Ford v. Wainwright) holding that the mentally ill cannot be condemned to die because it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. 

Why urge clemency with the Governor's Office now?

At the Devine, Connell, Sheldon & Flood website, defense counsel have posted their arguments in the unusual clemency request: 

• 1.  a juror has said they would not have voted for death if they had known of Muhammad's mental illness; 


• 2.  experts report that the Washington Sniper suffers from severe mental illness, and this is documented by his brain damage, brain dysfunction, and other neurological deficits as well as his psychotic and delusional behavior; 


• 3.  he may additionally suffer from Gulf War Syndrome. 

According to media reports, the Governor hasn't been that open to considering clemency for the Washington Sniper -- he's said so, and his office has also leaned on the standard operating procedure of clemency considerations occuring only after judicial review is finished.  

It's an interesting and aggressive tactic that the Sniper's defense counsel is taking.  For all of us that oppose the death penalty, we're rooting for 'em.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Monday, the Supreme Court heard argument in the Bies case (see 04/27/09 post), and the very next day issued its opinion in Cone v. Bell, 555 U.S. ___ (2009), both capital punishment cases where the defendant argued a diminished capacity of some sort. In today's case, there was an intentional hiding of the ball by the State and a definite due process problem.

Gary Cone was a known drug addict who murdered two people.

It is undisputed that Gary Cone was a Vietnam veteran who returned home to Memphis, Tennessee, and failed to cope well with civilian life. One Saturday morning in 1980, Gary Cone robbed a jewelry store - obviously, not very well - and was promptly pursued by local police in what turned into a high speed chase.

Veering into a residential neighborhood, Cone abandoned his car and shot both a police officer and a Good Samaritan who tried to stop him as Cone fled on foot. On the hunt for another getaway car, Cone tried to carjack someone and when they refused to give them the keys, he tried to shoot them, too, only to find he was out of bullets. By this time, helicopters were flying overhead and the scene was escalating to a frantic pace. (You've seen the reality TV shows like COPS, you can visualize these events.)

Somehow that Saturday afternoon, Cone got away. No one could find him. However, early the next morning, Gary Cone was still in the neighborhood - knocking on the door of an elderly couple, Shipley and Cleopatra Todd. He asked to use their phone; Cleo Todd refused and slammed the door on Cone. Cleo called the cops, and still Cone could not be found.

The tragedy occurred later that same day. Cone returned to the Todd home, forced himself into their house, and beat the two senior citizens to death before tearing their house apart. He shaved there, got himself to the Memphis airport, and was busted while robbing a drug store in Pompano Beach, Florida a couple of days later.

Vietnam Vet Cone Asserted an Insanity Defense - He Didn't Contest His Actions

Vietnam vet Gary Cone was arrested, tried, and convicted of the Todds' murder. He never challenged evidence that showed he committed these horrific acts. What he asserted as his defense was his mental illness: Cone's defense team brought forth evidence to show that Cone suffered from chronic amphetamine psychosis, a mental disorder caused by excessive drug abuse.

Experts testified that the drug use began while Cone was serving in Vietnam, where he was using "horrific" quantities of drugs while dealing with the bodies of dead soldiers. The mental illness caused by this drug use created a level of paranoia and a disorder including hallucinations that would keep Cone from understanding or being able to conform to everyday life and the boundaries imposed by Tennessee law.

In sum, the entirety of Cone's defense was mental illness. He was legally insane when the crimes were committed.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

This morning, at 11:00 EST, oral arguments will begin before the United States Supreme Court on whether or not a federal appeals court (the 6th Circuit) interfered with a state court death penalty case where the defendant was found to be mentally retarded. And while that sounds very procedural and legalistic, whether or not Michael Bies will be executed by the State of Ohio is the real issue here.

The case, Bobby v. Bies (08-598), has the Solicitor General of Ohio, Benjamin C. Mizer, arguing for the warden. Professor John Blume, of Cornell Law School, is advocating for Michael Bies.

It's Already Been Decided that the Death Penalty Cannot Be Imposed Upon Mentally Retarded Individuals

Back in 2002, the Supreme Court already held that the execution of mentally retarded individuals violates the due process provisions of the Eighth Amendment (Atkins v. Virginia). Today, the High Court is looking at double jeopardy protections. Specifically, in the Bies case, the focus will be whether or not double jeopardy protects a defendant at a state (not federal) post-conviction hearing where mental competency is being assessed pursuant to Atkins, when the issue of the defendant's "borderline mental retardation" had already been recognized earlier, by the state supreme court.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)