Legal

Blood Money

MayorBob.

Posted to Legal on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:05:51 PM EST (promoted by DEMachina). RSS.

The death penalty is frequently criticized because only the poorest among us really risk dates with the executioner.  It would stand to reason that the poorest can't afford to put on a first class defense.  One state, following a painful experience with reversals of wrongful convictions, decided to make sure money wouldn't deter a vigorous defense when one's life is on the line.  That state, Illinois, set up a pot of money those accused of capital crimes could tap to pay for their defense.  Now it seems that this noble experiment in leveling the playing fields is tarnished as it was revealed that those who were supposed to be vigorously defending their clients were just as vigorously looting the taxpayer-provided defense fund.

Illinois's Capital Litigation Defense Fund was established in 2000 (scroll down to ISBA-supported bill) to "ensure that a lack of financial resources would not deny a death penalty defendant access to competent counsel and the ability to mount a credible defense."  Part of the fund is made available to prosecutors to assist them in offsetting the typically high costs of a capital murder case.  But, the bulk of the money eventually finds itself being disbursed to defense attorneys assigned to defend, at times, indigent clients.  Since the fund opened up eight years ago, more than $150 million has been spent (pdf doc).

The expenditures have increased during a period in which there has been a moratorium on death sentences.  And, although the original intent of the fund was to provide the accused adequate resources during their initial murder trials, Illinois expanded use of the money in 2004 to those appealing their convictions.  Even though concerns were raised about questionable expenses in 2004, a St. Louis Post-Dispatch report shows that the fund still goes unaudited and uncontrolled by state officials.  Consider some of the questionable expenses connected with the murder trial of Jason Smith:

  • A Texas psychologist billed the fund $270 an hour, including the 80 minutes it took to pack a suitcase.

  • John Nixon, an Indiana firearms expert charged $300 an hour for time spent driving to Illinois for the trial.

  • A consultant charging $97 for 90 minutes spent making $17 worth of copies.

  • $18 charged for sending one email.

    In total, Jason Smith's defense team tapped the fund for well over $1 million.  Nixon asked if "anyone in business ... travel(s) for free" and, because he normally charges $350 an hour, he gave the Illinois taxpayer "a discount."  Alva Busch, a private investigator who worked on the Smith case, collected more than $920,000 for his work on some 20 cases over the past five years.  One local prosecutor said the lax oversight of the fund is an inducement for defense lawyers and expert witnesses to "milk this thing like a cow."  The main problem being that there is no single state office which oversees the fund; trial judges are authorized to approve expenditures from the fund.  This troubles St. Clair Circuit Judge Milton Wharton enough that he is formally asking the state Attorney General to look into the matter.

    Lest anyone think it's only defense teams which have rung up some dotty expenditures out of the fund, the Post-Dispatch reports more than a few questionable prosecution expenditures.  These include some $20,000 to pay for medication for an accused murderer when inmate health fees are normally the responsibility of the county holding the prisoner.  Yet, the fund's notoriety as an open treasure chest is well known enough for one law firm to comment "if you've got the money, spend it."  And that's a sentiment that worries State Senator Bill Haine (D - Alton).  As he sees it, there has to be some sort of limit put on the fund or "these guys are just going to bleed this dry."

  • Tags: written by MayorBob, edited by DEMachina, death penalty, legal costs, Illinois, death sentence moratorium (all tags)

    This story: 4 comments (0 from subqueue)
    Post a Comment
    1

    this is dumb

    wetkarma.

    Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 03:37:48 AM EST

    none

    1. Set out standardized expense rates based on activity the government is willing to pay. Your $350/hr fee might fly in the private sector, but if you want to do work for the government then you are going to get paid much less. If juries have to put up with crap pay, then expert witnesses can do so as well.

    2.  Any expense above the standard level must be pre-authorized.

    Its not that hard people, millions of businessness give their employees expense accounts and it rarely (these days) results in runaway spending. The problem here is not with the idea of the fund, the problem is a clear lack of sufficient controls.

    That said - it seems to me that the logic of only offering this fund to capital cases (and their appeals) is rather flawed from a justice standpoint. Are the people who get sentenced to life without parole unworthy of defense as well?

    Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

    2

    ^ 1

    Re: this is dumb

    port1080.

    Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 06:45:57 AM EST

    5.00 (astute)

    Are the people who get sentenced to life without parole unworthy of defense as well?

    The big difference, of course, is that in capital cases there is a certain time limit involved...and no chance for the government to say "woops, we made a mistake" once the sentence has been carried out.  I'd say it's a practical recognition that any system will have its flaws, combined with a desire to make sure that in the one area (capital punishment) where flaws are least tolerable maximum effort is made to ensure a proper verdict.  Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be working out all that well, but I don't think that this example invalidates the idea, at least, of spending more time and money on capital cases.  

    3

    ^ 2

    Re: this is dumb

    wetkarma.

    Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:32:50 AM EST

    5.00 (astute)

    Well if we are going to spend the 'extra time and money' on making sure we get it right on capital cases, whereas we don't feel the same need for life without parole cases, I say lets get rid of the death penalty and just switch capital cases to be 'life without the possibility of parole cases'.

    Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

    4

    ^ 3

    Re: this is dumb

    port1080.

    Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:46:59 AM EST

    5.00 (astute)

    I, for one, don't have a big problem with that notion.  I don't have any disagreement with the death penalty in theory, but I tend to think that in practice it's unfairly applied and the high level of certainty required simply costs too much, when compared with the "reward" (revenge, deterrence, whatever).  My other thought on the subject has been that perhaps we should only allow the death penalty to be given to people who are already in prison with a sentence of life without parole, and yet commit murder again anyway.  That is the one case where I think you could say the death penalty might have a clear deterrent affect, and it strikes me that you'd be significantly less likely to be executing innocent people if you limited it in that way.

    This story: 4 comments (0 from subqueue)
    Post a Comment