Sniper Defense Costs to Top $1 Million

[adios]

What's wrong with this picuture?

Sniper Defense Costs to Top $1 Million (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=2&u=/ap/20031013/ap_on_re_us/sniper_shootings_costs_2)

Sniper Defense Costs to Top $1 Million
51 minutes ago Add U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo!


By MATTHEW BARAKAT, Associated Press Writer

FAIRFAX, Va. - With the first trial in the Washington sniper case set to begin on Tuesday, the court-appointed lawyers for the two defendants have submitted nearly $900,000 in bills so far for reimbursement by Virginia taxpayers.


AP Photo



The attorneys appear to be on their way to racking up the most expensive court-appointed defenses in Virginia history, though nobody keeps statistics on such matters.


According to the Virginia Supreme Court, which keeps track of expenses incurred for indigent defendants, John Allen Muhammad's lawyers have filed for $401,785 through September. Lee Boyd Malvo's lawyers have filed for $478,677.


The bills include lawyers' fees of $125 an hour, and payments for court-appointed investigators, mental-health experts and forensic experts. The bills do not include the costs of the trials themselves, which will require housing not only for the lawyers but for all their witnesses.


Both trials have been moved about 200 miles from the Washington suburbs to Hampton Roads for fear it will be difficult to select an unbiased jury in the metropolitan area where the sniper shootings created such fear last fall.


Muhammad, 42, goes on trial Tuesday in Virginia Beach in the Oct. 9 shooting of Dean Harold Meyers outside a Manassas gas station. Malvo's trial, in the Oct. 14 shooting death of FBI analyst Linda Franklin, begins Nov. 10 in Chesapeake. Muhammad's trial is expected to take six weeks, Malvo's trial perhaps four.


The two are charged with 13 shootings, including 10 killings, over a three-week span last October in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C. They are also suspected or charged in shootings in Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Arizona and Washington state.


Fairfax County Commonwealth's Attorney Robert F. Horan Jr. said he has never seen so much money spent on a defense in the 37 years he has served as chief prosecutor in Virginia's most populous county.


"My personal view is that Virginia made a very bad mistake when they took the cap off the fees" paid to court-appointed defense lawyers in capital cases, Horan said. "It's an open invitation to file any motion under the sun. It's just totally changed the landscape on these things."


The prosecution's costs are unclear. Horan said any figure would be a guess because many of the witnesses are government employees who get paid whether or not they work on the sniper case.


In Virginia, court-appointed lawyers' fees are usually capped. The most a lawyer can get is $1,235 to represent a defendant charged with a felony punishable by 20 or more years. That cap used to apply to capital murder cases but was lifted by the Legislature in the late 1980s.


Craig Cooley, one of Malvo's lawyers and a veteran defense attorney who has handled scores of capital cases, said he was paid exactly $400 on each of the first 20 capital cases to which he was assigned.


Cooley said that the Malvo case is the most expensive he has ever been involved with, but that the defense costs are "a smidgen compared to what prosecutors are spending."


The sniper case "is incredibly more complex" than a typical capital case, Cooley said, with a sprawling investigation that includes more than a dozen shooting scenes and investigators who have had to travel to Louisiana, Washington, Jamaica and Antigua, among other places.


Jonathan Shapiro, one of Muhammad's lawyers, said the sniper case is like none other before it, with the possible exception of the Oklahoma City bombing.


Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh's defense team racked up nearly $14 million in expenses paid by federal taxpayers. (McVeigh's prosecution cost $82 million, according to government records.) That case, though, was handled in federal court, which is more liberal about allowing defense attorneys to spend money on jury consultants and other items.


Shapiro said the judge gave him and co-counsel Peter Greenspun most of what they asked for, though the defense team was denied a request for a jury consultant and some other items.





Shapiro said the need for investigators is made greater by Virginia's rules of evidence, which do not require prosecutors to share all that they have learned with the defense.

Shapiro unsuccessfully asked for sanctions against police who leaked numerous documents to two Washington Post reporters who wrote a recent book about the case.

"There is a ton of stuff we never would have found out" if not for the book, Shapiro said. "The irony is just so extreme that they went to such lengths to withhold the information from us, but they just give it out to the press."

[elwoodblues]

Is something supposed to be jumping out at me as "wrong with this picture." I guess my assumptions about these things might be different than yours. My assumptions are the following:
1) Since the landmark case of Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), indigent defendants in state court cases have the right to appointed counsel.
2) The accused is an indigent defendant in a state court action.
3) The accused is entitled to appointed counsel.
4) Death penalty cases are expensive to defend
5) This is a death penalty case
6) This case will be expensive to defend
7) Because the state is paying the defense costs (see number 3 above) and this case will be expensive to defend (see number 6) the state will pay a lot for the defense.

It's probably just me, but I don't see anything wrong with this picture. I'm in favor of smaller government. When the government wants to take either life, liberty, or property, I'm going to require of the government that they follow the proper procedure (the 5th and 14th amendments to the Constitution also require this, it isn't just elwoodblues doing a whole bunch of crazy-talk). If the government is going to take a life in my name (this is a democratic-republic after all), I want to make darn sure that they don't screw it up (we've been known to do that in the past). One of the ways to make sure that the government doesn't screw it up is with adequate representation by disinterested counsel (wow, it's funny how these things tend to make sense when you put all the pieces together). The accused cannot afford adequate representation. For the case to go forward without counsel, we (all of us who like smaller government) would be allowing the government to take someone's life with very little effort. To put a check on government, we decided to require the state to pay for defense costs for indigent defendants...and the picture becomes much clearer.

~elwoodblues

[HDPM]

An average capital case costs about 500,000 in attorneys fees and experts. That is if the lawyers are doing their job. I think it is now a problem for a lawyer to accept a cap or a flat fee on an appointed capital case, at least per the guidelines the ABA has issued. Capital cases are horrendously expensive, and they should be. Plenty of mistakes are made and the stakes are too high to do it on the cheap. The ABA guidelines now require 2 lawyers, 2 or more investigators, a mental health expert, and access to other experts. In a case like the sniper case with publicity and venue issues, I believe a jury consultant is necessary. Figure 50-75 K for the work you need on that alone. Also, I think a lot of motions must be relitigated in each capital case. The Supreme Court has shown that what is constitutional today might not be constitutional tomorrow. So IMO a lawyer needs to raise issues hoping the argument laughed at now is the one that overturns the death penalty in 10 years.

What I find wrong is that Virginia caps fees for appointed counsel at 1200 for serious felonies. That amount is ridiculous. A DUI case that pleads takes 1200 in time pretty easily. More if you have any motions at all. A felony trial for 1200? No way. That is a nice way to go broke. You can't have your own practice and do felonies for 1200. Unless you just want to do one pro bono or something. To pay a lawyer 1200 on a rape or something is ridiculous and unconstitutional IMO. Also, their discovery rules need to change.


FWIW China has a very inexpensive capital defense system. I don't suggest we emulate it though.

[adios]

"It's probably just me, but I don't see anything wrong with this picture. I'm in favor of smaller government. When the government wants to take either life, liberty, or property, I'm going to require of the government that they follow the proper procedure (the 5th and 14th amendments to the Constitution also require this, it isn't just elwoodblues doing a whole bunch of crazy-talk)."

Whoa there partner. Who stated that I didn't want to follow proper procedure in prosecuting these defendends? What dollar figure constitutes an adequate defense? Why is it only $1 million and not $50 million? Why isn't it $500,000? Why isn't it $250,000? Why not a $1,000,000,000? There are two things that I see is very wrong. One is that is a situation where the indigent defendents get a better defense than someone who is say making $50,000 and has a net worth of $100,000. The second thing I see wrong is the potential for corruption and the justification for these costs.

"One of the ways to make sure that the government doesn't screw it up is with adequate representation by disinterested counsel (wow, it's funny how these things tend to make sense when you put all the pieces together). The accused cannot afford adequate representation. For the case to go forward without counsel, we (all of us who like smaller government) would be allowing the government to take someone's life with very little effort. "

Oh and I said that they shouldn't be represented by an attorney? Where did I say that? What do you define as adequate representation? Again why wouldn't $100,1000 represent adequate representation? You've put words in my mouth and pontificated a lot but you've offered zero justification for this amount of money to constitutes an adequate defense? I'd bet a lot of money that the legal bills for capital offenses for defendents in Virginia don't average anywhere close to this kind of money.

[adios]

"An average capital case costs about 500,000 in attorneys fees and experts."

Some questions. Is that just if they go to trial? Is this for a defense only? Is that for the trial only or does it include appeals? At what rate per hour is this figure arrived i.e. at what rate do the attorneys charge? In this particular case $125 an hour seems kind of low /images/graemlins/smile.gif. I hope I didn't come across as being confrontational or cross examining you /images/graemlins/smile.gif but I'll admit I am surprised at that figure. So actually these defendends are really getting a low cost defense? Is that what we're saying here?

[MMMMMM]

elwoodblues sounds a lot like a former frequent poster who shall go unnamed at the moment. The tendency to put words (or thoughts) in others' mouths, combined with the condescending sarcasm, narrows the choice down to three individuals IMO. Of course I could be wrong and elwoodblues might be a newcomer simply expressing his concerns in the nicest manner he can muster.

[adios]

The Application of the Death Penalty in Colorado (http://www.ago.state.co.us/PRESREL/presrl2003/DeathPenalty.pdf)

HDPM I know you can shed some light on this for me. It looks like the average cost to defend capital cases in Colorado is much less than $500,000 and it seems that Colorado is very in tuned with giving defendents a fair trial in their cases.

From the document:

[b]January 21, 2003
The Honorable John Andrews The Honorable Joan Fitzgerald
President, Colorado State Senate Senate Minority Leader
200 E. Colfax Avenue Colorado State Senate
Denver, CO 80203 200 E. Colfax Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
The Honorable Lola Spradley
Speaker of the House of Representatives The Honorable Jennifer Veiga
200 E. Colfax Avenue House Minority Leader
Denver, CO 80203 Colorado House of Representatives
200 E. Colfax Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
Re: The Application of the Death Penalty in Colorado
Dear Senators Andrews and Fitzgerald and Representatives Spradley and Veiga:
Given the events concerning the death penalty in Illinois, I would like to provide you with a brief status of the application of the death penalty here in Colorado. As the
cases and the evidence make clear, the death penalty is applied in Colorado in a thoughtful, careful and prudent manner.
1. Colorado only applies the death penalty in rare and aggravated cases .
Since 1986, only 8 men have been sentenced to death in Colorado. Only one murderer has been executed (Gary Davis--October 1997). A second died of hepatitis (Frank Rodriguez-- Spring 2002).
Five men presently remain on Colorado's death row: Nathan Dunlap, Robert Harlan, Francisco Martinez, William Lee Neal, and George Woldt. Attached is a summary of crimes for which these men were sentenced to death. These cases
demonstrate that the defendants on Colorado’s death row committed the most heinous crimes imaginable and were appropriate defendants for the death penalty.
Six death penalty cases are set for trial this year, 2003.
2. Colorado's 4-step death sentence process is the most protective in the country.
Colorado's death penalty statute, C.R.S. § 18-1.3-1201, et.seq. provides that a 3-step process must occur during the death sentencing earings following a conviction for
First Degree Murder. The Colorado Supreme Court has added an additional 4th step as a result of their holdings in People v. Tenneson, 788 P.2d 786 (1990). No other state in the country other than Utah, requires a 4-step process for death penalty sentencing. These
steps are:
Step 1: After the conviction for First Degree Murder in the guilt phase of the trial, the jury, in the sentencing phase, must decide whether the prosecution has proven
the existence of one or more "aggravating factors" beyond a reasonable doubt.
Step 2: The jury must determine whether there are mitigating factors.
Step 3: The jury must determine whether or not mitigating factors outweigh the proven aggravating factors.
Step 4: Finally, the jury must determine whether, based on all the evidence, they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that death is the appropriate sentence.
No other state, other than Utah, requires these complex four procedural steps in the death penalty sentencing process.
3. The criticisms of national death penalty abolitionists do not apply in Colorado.
There are specific individuals who oppose the death penalty under any circumstances and attempt to cultivate public opinion against the death penalty. Often the arguments made are that the death penalty is applied unfairly because

(a) states do not supply resources and experienced attorneys for the defense;

(b) states overreach by seeking the death penalty against minors and mentally retarded defendants;

(c) the death penalty is applied disproportionately against minorities; and

(d) prosecutors are over zealous and not thoughtful in the application of the death penalty. In Colorado, these
proposed arguments are not consistent with the facts.
A. The State of Colorado provides experienced attorneys and significant resources for the defense of individuals charged with capital murders. The Office of the Public Defender in Colorado has an annual budget in excess of
$25 million. They have experienced attorneys and investigators assigned to their death penalty cases. On average, they spend well over $200,000 of state funds defending a death penalty case. Two and a half years ago, a member of the state Public Defender’s office was quoted as saying that Colorado spends an average of over $200,000 to
$220,000 on the trial defense of each capital case. Rocky Mountain News, "Death Penalty Debate: Executions Are Rare In Colorado, And Many Want To Keep The System That Way,” June 25, 2000. As noted by the Chief Deputy Public Defender in that article, A death penalty case in Texas costs anywhere from $35,000 to $50,000 for the defense, and in Colorado it’s from $200,000 to $220,000. What does
that extra $150,000 buy you? Well, it buys you a fair trial. You get the investigation. You get lawyers who care about what they’re doing, who have the time and the resources to be an advocate on your behalf. You get
a demand of justice from the prosecution and the courts and the jurors, and you get the capacity of a lawyer to do that. ... We’re nationally recognized as perhaps the premier public defender system in the country.
Additionally, in 1996 the state legislature created the Office of Alternate Counsel that appoints lawyers to represent capital defendants where the public defender has a conflict.
That office now has an annual budget of approximately $12 million.
Every year both the prosecution (Attorney General’s office and the offices of the local District Attorneys) and state funded defense counsel are required to report their
death penalty case costs to the General Assembly. Capital case defense costs can be determined by reviewing these reports filed by the Attorney General and the District
Attorneys, the Office of the Public Defender and the Office of Alternate Counsel.
Defense costs in capital cases from the October 2002 reports from the State Public Defender and Alternate Defense Counsel are as follows:
1. Public Defender $1,398,292
2. Alternate Defense Counsel $1,247,168
Total $2,645,460
The Attorney General’s report, which collects both the costs of local prosecutors and the costs of the Attorney General’s staff in capital cases, showed the following expenditures in the October 2002 report:
1. District Attorneys $743,321
2. Attorney General $394,071
Total $1,137,392
These numbers show that the Attorney General and the District Attorneys are outspent by the defense almost two and half dollars to every one dollar spent by prosecutors, or 2.5
to 1.B. Colorado statutes already specifically exclude seeking the death penalty in aggravated murder cases where the defendant is a minor or is mentally retarded.
Again, this argument against the death penalty does not apply in Colorado.
C.R.S. § 18-1.3-1201(1)(a) provides that the death penalty cannot be sought for defendants who are mentally retarded or less than 18 years old.
C. Gary Davis is the only death row inmate executed in Colorado since 1967.
Gary Davis was convicted in 1987 of the brutal kidnapping, sex assault and murder of a mother in rural Adams County. Gary Davis is the only murderer executed in Colorado since 1967. Gary Davis was a sex offender on parole at the time of the murder.
D. When questions arise concerning the death penalty, Colorado's prosecutors and lawmakers take a careful and cautious approach to those issues.
On June 24, 2002, the United States Supreme Court announced the Ring v.Arizona decision. The United States Supreme Court reversed its earlier position and held
that statutory aggravating factors in a death penalty sentencing must be made by a jury, rather than a judge.
In response, Governor Owens called a special session last summer to address potential consequences of the Ring decision. The General Assembly, the Governor and
Colorado’s law enforcement community worked together to provide additional security and confidence for Colorado's death penalty laws. The decision was made to take the
most cautious and secure approach and return all death penalty decision making to juries.
4. Conclusion.
In conclusion, Colorado applies the death penalty in a most cautious and prudent manner. The stated concerns surrounding the death penalty do not apply in Colorado. I
have confidence in the manner in which the death penalty is applied in Colorado, and believe you should also. Perhaps the most telling fact surrounding the death penalty in
Colorado is that there has been no claim by the defense that any of the defendants on death row are innocent.
Colorado’s capital punishment statutes, procedure and operation have been, and will continue to be carried out in a cautious and thoughtful way.
Sincerely,
KEN SALAZAR
Attorney General
cc: Peter Weir, Executive Director, Colorado District Attorneys Council
Sheriff George Epp, Executive Director, County Sheriffs of Colorado
Chief Walter Vanatta, President, Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police[/b

[HDPM]

Very recently I had a few with a guy in the Colorado Public Defender's office who has tried a lot of death cases. We talked about funding capital defense and what the Colorado Public Defenders have done regarding their budget and how efficient they are. The Colorado Public Defender has been very aggressive about getting an adequate budget, going so far as to decline to take cases if they get overloaded. However, they are very efficient - very little administration and a lot of experienced lawyers. It is no surprise their costs are low because they are a statewide system and have very good lawyers who receive public sector salaries. it thus costs the same to have one of their lawyers try a death case as sit in the office. They also can do a lot of investigation in-house. There still will be extra costs on a capital case, but Colorado's public defender system is very good. And the legislature in Colorado knows it. The legislature won't cut their budget a lot because they know that the alternative to the public defender will cost a lot. So even when they win a lot of death cases they don't suffer at the hands of law and order republicans. And the Colorado Public Defender's Office has done an amazing job keeping death row empty since they were formed. There was a reason the legislature scrapped jury sentencing and went to 3 judge panels (until that procedure was ruled unconstitutional) The public defenders made it very very hard for prosecutors to win death verdicts. the Colorado public Defender is a model for public defenders really. All states should do something similar IMO. Texas getting away w/ 35-50 K is laughable. No wonder they execute so many.

The numbers I have seen at 500,000 came from federal public defenders I think. I am not sure exactly what they looked at. And of course it varies. But a death case takes around 1800 - 2000 hours for each lawyer. A year of time basically. Sometimes more. So if you have 2 lawyers at 100/hr figure on 400K for that. Then a mitigation investigation which must be very detailed. And a fact investigation. And experts. This is if the case goes to trial. You still have some expense if the case pleads, because the investigation needs to be done up front. Often you need to let things shake out some to get the case in a position to plead. But it is still a lot cheaper to plead one than to try one. My numbers were defense costs only. Not any extra prosecution expenses or costs to sequester a jury, etc...

[HDPM]

See my post above, but a couple more points. I am thinking of trial only. Appeals cost more. It is usually cheaper to pay for life without parole than a death sentence.

[Boris]

lol. Don't act so suprised at the reactions you get Tom. The only commentary you gave on the article was "what's wrong with this picture?"

The implication was clearly that something was wrong, or was this just a trick question? Since you neglected to point out anything wrong with the picture we are left to try and guess what you might think is wrong or we can just offer any commentary we deem appropriate. People put words in your mouth because you don't. If you're so concerned about being misinterpreted then you should elaborate a bit more on what exactly it is you're trying to communicate.

I'm going to go out on a limb here at label you as one of the "conservative" posters on this forum. I don't really know how to define a conservative but I know one when I see one. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif It seems to me that the conservatives are often concerned about the fact that there aren't enough hanging judges; so it only seems fair that you believe they are spending too damn much money defending the accused snipers.

[adios]

Apparently the answer is nothing is wrong. Yep I got sticker shock. It may surprise you to know that I'm opposed to the death penalty since I haven't found a convincing arguement where it saves lives. HDPM states, and I have no reason to doubt him, that the average cost of a capital case at the Federal level is $500,000 so I guess the state of Virginia is actually getting a bargain /images/graemlins/smile.gif. But there is an issue at what price does an adequate defense cost for such a case. I'm a little surprised that there are a few implications that I don't support a fair trial if I don't support the $500,000 figure necessarily. Same question I asked before is $50 million too much, is $1 million too much? Put another way if only $250,000 was spent why would this level of funding indicate an inadequate defense? When does it become ridiculously expensive. I can't see any reason why $500,000 per defendend is necessary but apparently it is.

[adios]

Interesting and I do appreciate the response a great deal. I suppose that capital cases make the whole process a lot more expensive. It does seem to me though that two lawyers working full time for a year is a bit much. I'd sure like to see what they're billing they're time for. I guess I'm just ignorant as to how much legal work is really involved in preparing such a defense.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd sure like to see what they're billing they're time for. I guess I'm just ignorant as to how much legal work is really involved in preparing such a defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tom the best golf courses take several hours to play and those green fees are outrageous as well. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[HDPM]

I will try to check the #'s I threw about tomorrow when I'm at the office. I will try to narrow it down and be more specific if I can. But the bottom line is that death cases take a lot more time and effort. You do stuff you wouldn't do in a less serious case. The investigation needs to be a lot more extensive and you need to file a lot of motions and fight every little thing. The more I learn about it, the more I learn you need to do. It is kind of intimidating really, when you think about the consequences. A lot of lawyers have done death cases without learning all the stuff they might be able to do. They can do it cheaper. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[MMMMMM]

It is not the speaker's/writer's responsibility to avoid being misinterpreted, unless they misrepresent. It is the responsibility of the reader/listener to not misinterpret, and to not "read into" what is being communicated.

You act surprised that Tom didn't anticipate someone putting words in his mouth. I see it another way: I am surprised that anyone would ever put words in anyone's mouth, but I guess I shouldn't be.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
It does seem to me though that two lawyers working full time for a year is a bit much

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I go back to one of my original points (phrased in a slightly different way) --- In a death penalty case, the government is trying to exert an amount of power that should scare friends of small government. Having two individuals in charge of keeping that power in check does not seem excessive in the least to me.

I appologize if the sarcastic nature of my original post offended anyone. I honestly (I promise you that this isn't sarcasm) don't know what type of response you wanted to get from your original question. If you weren't looking for responses or only wanted responses from those that agreed with the sentiments implicit in your question then maybe it should have been more clear.

~elwoodblues

[elwoodblues]

You are wrong. I've never posted under any name other than elwoodblues, but I suspect that nothing that I say will convince you of that. Just out of curiosity, what former poster do you think I sound like?

[Ragnar]

I have a few things to add to the discussion. I was away from my computer while it developed (long poker session /images/graemlins/tongue.gif)
As one of the few people on this list who has done capital litigation I think I should chime in.

One of the important points in the article was that the defense is having to investigate all of the shootings. This is a good reason for the additional costs. Even though the defendants have been charged in other jurisdictions I don't believe they have had arraignments and attorneys in the other places. Thus, these defense attorneys must investigate the other shootings fully. The reason for that is that if they can raise doubt that someone else did one or more of the other shootings, or their clients had an alibi for those times it causes doubt in the whole structure of the case. In addition the state will try to argue that the defendants should be executed because they are mass murderers, and even if the state doesn't try to use the other killings as other bad acts in the trial, they will surely use them in the penalty phase.

One of the great areas of expense in the trial phase of capital litigation is motion practice. The defense must file every conceivable motion that could assist their client, even if it seems frivilous. This is because capital litigation takes so long through the appeal process, and the law changes so much. However, many of the motions come from stock motions circulated by the capital defense bar, and many defense attorneys just take them from forms and file them. A saavy judge can limit the portion of the fee for those motions, and should do so. The attorneys should only be paid for actual work. (HDPM was only kidding about golf course time ?)

I was also intrigued by the portion of the article that states that there is additional expense because Virginia law does not require prosecutors to share their investigation with the defense. This certainly causes duplication of effort and additional expense in a case of this magnitude. Of course all prosecutors, even in Virginia, must turn over any information that would be exculpatory (helpful in any way) to the defendant, under the rule of Brady v. Maryland . However, the decision of what is helpful should be made by the defense, not the prosecution. I have practiced in Arizona for 21 years as a prosecutor, 6 as a defense attorney. I have a strong belief that our system in which we must turn over everything (with very unusual exceptions which never occurred in my entire career) is far fairer. Until I read this article I never thought about the duplication of expense, but it is a legitimate issue.

In most cases that proceed through the process completely through execution the major expense is in the appellate process, not the trial. However, this case is probably an exception due to the complexity of the case.

The rule that the state must pay for indigent defense in capital cases was established before Gideon v. Wainwright . Gideon established it in non-capital cases.

Ragnar

[ACPlayer]

An enlightening thread.

To pick up on Tom Haley's point about the salaried worker who gets charged.

If, I am a $50K a year regular person who is charged and has thus lost his job, and has say $20K in net current assests and another $50K in 401K etc. That is not going to get me very far in the defense process.

Can I in most jurisdictions, having spent my assets, then use the Gideon precedent to have the state pay for the rest of my expenses to my own lawyer and investigators etc? Would that be a loan and have to be repaid when I get back to work (assuming I am found innocent)?

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
It is not the speaker's/writer's responsibility to avoid being misinterpreted...

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again you are completely wrong. Communication is a two way street and the writer/speaker most definitely bears a good portion (at least 70% IMO) of the responsibility for communicating a reasonably clear thought. The primary constraint for a communicator is that the audience is easily bored and has a short memory. So a communicator must be efficient.

[ QUOTE ]
It is the responsibility of the reader/listener to not misinterpret, and to not "read into" what is being communicated.

[/ QUOTE ]

For reasons of efficiency the the reader/listener almost always has to interpret, read between the lines, anticipate, geuss, induce, etc... in order to reach a higher level of understanding concerning the thought being communicated.

[adios]

"I was also intrigued by the portion of the article that states that there is additional expense because Virginia law does not require prosecutors to share their investigation with the defense."

Yep this would add a lot of hours and your points about investigating all the other shootings are well taken. Here's an excerpt from a news item on the John Mohammid trial that starts today:

The other capital charge alleges multiple murders over three years. Prosecutors will have to prove Muhammad's involvement in the Meyers killing and at least one other fatal shooting to obtain a conviction under that count.

Anyway thanks for the input, it's much appreciated. Here's the URL and the story, all kinds of costly legal items as I look further into it:

Sniper Suspect Muhammad Pleads Innocent (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20031014/ap_on_re_us/sniper_shootings_trial_15)

Sniper Suspect Muhammad Pleads Innocent
40 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!


By MATTHEW BARAKAT, Associated Press Writer

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - John Allen Muhammad entered innocent pleas and greeted potential jurors with silence Tuesday as the death-penalty trial of the 42-year-old sniper suspect got under way a year after a series of deadly shootings terrified the Washington area.


AP Photo



Muhammad pleaded innocent to capital murder and firearms charges. He initially remained silent when asked a routine question by Circuit Judge Roy F. Millette Jr., but later answered after whispering with an attorney.


Muhammad, wearing a white button-down shirt and tie, told Millette he understood the charges and that he was ready for the trial.


"I'm prepared for it, yes," he said.


The case, which is expected to last up to six weeks, was moved some 200 miles out of metropolitan Washington to this southeastern Virginia city after defense lawyers argued that every northern Virginia resident could be considered a victim because the shootings made them afraid.


Even so, some legal experts have said it will be difficult to select impartial jurors from a community where people may still have felt vulnerable as the attacks mounted. Intense media coverage of the case will also make it difficult to find unbiased jurors.


Some 120 potential jurors were being brought to the courtroom in groups of around 40 to fill out a lengthy questionnaire. After the first group was brought in, Millette introduced Muhammad and the lawyers in the case. The attorneys said, "Good morning," while Muhammad stood and said nothing to the prospects.


Eleven of the prospects were excused when they indicated a weekslong trial would be a hardship.


Millette warned the prospective jurors they would have to disregard pretrial publicity. They were to be questioned individually later about what they knew about the case and how they felt about sensitive issues such as the death penalty. Individual questioning is intended to ensure they are not influenced by each other's answers.


Muhammad's defense lawyers, Peter Greenspun and Jonathan Shapiro, have also expressed serious concerns that law-enforcement leaks already have hurt their client's chances of getting a fair trial.


Police violated a court order prohibiting them from discussing evidence with reporters "because they feel like nobody is going to complain that Mr. Muhammad's rights were violated," Greenspun said.


Shapiro also says the defense has suffered under Virginia rules that severely limit what prosecutors are required to disclose before trial.


"We're as prepared as the law in Virginia has allowed us. There is a wall, behind which there is a ton of information we just don't know," Shapiro said.


Outside the courthouse Tuesday morning, the two defense lawyers took no questions from reporters but Greenspun thanked Virginia Beach residents "for their graciousness in accepting this trial." He added: "We hope to have a fair trial with the help of the citizens of Virginia Beach."


Paul Ebert, a prosecutor from Prince William County where the case originated, dismissed the idea that leaks have rendered the defense unprepared. In fact, he said, a recently published book with inside information from law enforcement actually revealed more information than defense attorneys would otherwise have been entitled to receive.


Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, 18, are charged with 13 shootings, including 10 deaths, over a three weeks last October that left many Washington area residents ducking for cover as they filled gas tanks and ran errands.


Muhammad faces two counts of capital murder for the shooting of Dean Harold Meyers, 53, of Gaithersburg, Md., while he pumped gas at a Sunoco station near Manassas on Oct 9, 2002.





One charge is under an anti-terrorism law passed by the state legislature after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. It has never been prosecuted. The state will have to show not only that Muhammad participated in a murder, but that the intent was to influence the government or to intimidate the civilian population.

The other capital charge alleges multiple murders over three years. Prosecutors will have to prove Muhammad's involvement in the Meyers killing and at least one other fatal shooting to obtain a conviction under that count.

Defense lawyers argue Muhammad can get the death penalty on this count only if he was the triggerman, while prosecutors say recent case law shows they need only prove Muhammad was the "instigator and moving spirit" of the murders.

Malvo goes on trial Nov. 10 in neighboring Chesapeake for a fatal shooting last October outside a Home Depot in Fairfax County. His lawyers intend to pursue an insanity defense, saying Muhammad had so indoctrinated his young companion that Malvo could no longer tell right from wrong.

[MMMMMM]

"Once again you are completely wrong. Communication is a two way street and the writer/speaker most definitely bears a good portion (at least 70% IMO) of the responsibility for communicating a reasonably clear thought."

Tom Haley did communicate a reasonably clear thought or question, he just didn't elaborate on it. His intent cannot be divined although it might be surmised, but the reader has the responsibility to not presume his own surmise is necessarily correct.

The communicator may choose to elaborate or not. The reader/listener needs to catalog in his own mind everything that is certain versus that which is merely possible. People with poor mental visualization skills cannot keep track of everything in this manner, however, and quickly become lost. More evidence that people need to be required to learn to play blindfold chess (or at least become adept with visualizing moderately complex Venn diagrams) in their formative school years, in order to develop the skills necessary to accurately keep track of concepts being discussed, and their interrelationships.

Of course communication is a two-way street. A good communicator may choose to elaborate, sometimes even taking extra pains that he is not misinterpreted. But if the reader/listener is good that extra should not be much required. And one of the first things that make a good reader/listener are the abilities to catalog certainties versus possibilities, and to keep an accurate mental image of the whole as well as its constituent parts.

[Ragnar]

AC Player,

I can only tell you how it would work in Arizona. If you hired your own attorney and were found not guilty you would be out all of the money that you have spent. You could also hire counsel who could assist appointed counsel and they could handle a small portion of the case, or all of it. However, you wouldn't be reimbursed for what you paid. You could sue for false prosecution and obtain those fees and costs, but could only recover if there wasn't probable cause for the charge. There is a big gap between probable cause and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

You couldn't usually start with private counsel, and then running out of money get that counsel paid by state funds. I have seen that done rarely, in cases in which the private counsel was on the appointment list, or was willing to be paid at the government rate. Usually criminal defense attorneys charge flat fees up front. This is for a very good reason. If they lose and the client owes them money, they rarely get paid.

If you receive appointed counsel and are found guilty you can be assessed the costs of the attorney, whether a public defender or a private appointed counsel. However, if you are found not guilty you don't have to pay. (Big of them huh!)

One of the biggest problems is that middle class people can't afford good criminal defense attorneys without going well into debt. The expense of good representation is so high that only the very wealthy can afford it.

I think that Arizona is fairly representative in this area, but other lawyers on the forum can and will chime in.

May you never be put in this situation!

Ragnar

[elwoodblues]

Interesting...try this. Go back to the original post. Read the message and try to ignore the subsequent discussion. How, if in any way, would you have responded? What was the reasonably clear thought or question being communicated? When I read it, I thought it was reasonably clear; I honestly thought that my response addressed the thought/question posed. You seem to disagree. Maybe it wasn't so clear after all.

~elwood

[HDPM]

In my state the statute governing indigent defense says explicitly that a defendant who provides part of his own defense can still be considered indigent for other purposes. I have had some luck filing motions to get the court to pay for stuff a defendant's family can't afford. But you need to be on pretty solid ground and have charged a low or reasonable fee to begin with. If you get a huge retainer out of a guy then beg for funding it wouldn't work too well. These motions are treated a little skeptically by judges who wonder why if the defendant is indigent he has a private lawyer. So you can't abuse the availability of such a motion, but the law at least in my state allows it. Someday a judge will ask me how my client can be indigent when he hired me. I will say with a straight face that he only became indigent by the act of hiring me. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Seriously tho, as you and Ragnar pointed out, middle class people are in a bind when it comes to hiring an attorney.

[MMMMMM]

In my last post I was not so much criticizing your response to Tom's initial post as I was rebutting Boris' statements.

Your apparent take of what Tom meant might very easily have been correct, but his question "What is wrong with this picture?" might have referred to any or all of the following:

1) The thought that such dastardly criminals don't deserve such an incredibly expensive defense (morally speaking, not legally). In other words, if they are guilty, then it's a damn shame to be wasting such incredible amounts of resources on them

2) Sticker shock at this case in particular

2a) Sticker shock at costs of defending such cases in general

3) Sticker shock at the legal system in general in the USA

4) Realization that some of those many millions of dollars could probably be used to save other lives

5) Frustration or amazement at the apparent complexity of what is necessary for this trial--another commentary on the legal system, or on the perhaps totally unjustifiable costs of putting someone to death rather than warehousing them for life

6) A general commentary on how insane some people are (e.g. the snipers), or how crazy society is today

7) Probably a lot of other things too but I haven't gone back to reread it

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
In my last post I was... rebutting Boris' statements.


[/ QUOTE ]

yea right.

[adios]

"In a death penalty case, the government is trying to exert an amount of power that should scare friends of small government. Having two individuals in charge of keeping that power in check does not seem excessive in the least to me."

Again then why wouldn't $50 million be appropriate based on your statement. Put another way why couldn't they get an adequate defense for $250,000? Where do you draw the line as to how much is too much? The defendents lawyers were denied money for jury consultants so does that mean that the defendent is not getting an adequate defense? Obviously the State of Virginia had a limit. But when I look at the charges against John Mohammed I see some reasons why the costs may be high. Given the link I posted about Colorado and their treatment of the death penalty it seems to me to be perfectly legitimate to question the costs. Also there's an issue in my mind whether or not the amount of money spent indicates the quality of defense. Also I wonder about lawyers in what they believe will convince a jury and what actually will convince a jury. One famous case, the OJ case, spent I don't know how many hours in court as the trial spanned many months. Yet the jurors came to their verdict in about THREE HOURS if memory serves. I also pointed out in my original response to your first post that the defendents indigent status seems to entitle them to a more elaborate defense than someone of fairly modest means who could afford to retain council. Yep I got sticker shock and yep $1 million seems wrong to me but I concede that it may be justified but I have my doubts. A perfectly appropriate answer to my question would be nothing is wrong. Apparently your viewpoint is that any question of costs indicates to you that someone doesn't want the defendent to get a fair trial. Pardon my skeptisism but I'd still like to go over the particulars of the legal bill anyway /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[ACPlayer]

Thanks. my plan is to stay out of this situation.

It seems a shame that the rich and the very poor (at least in high profile cases) can get quality representation while the middle class is left to make tradeoffs between depleting the college fund and fighting a charge (whether guilty or not).

[MMMMMM]

Boris, you should go back and read the sub-thread until you get it right.

OBVIOUSLY, in the post in question, I was rebutting your statment which placed too much responsibility on the communicator and not enough on the reader/listener. In fact my arguments to that effect constituted by far the greatest part of my post.

[elwoodblues]

Asking how much is enough is an unfair question. The moment that I say, for example, that $500,000 per case is enough, a case will come along where the particular facts and circumstances would warrant more than that. I don't think it is possible to state how much is a reasonable amount in actual dollars. I think using a standard like "reasonable" is much better, it allows for the facts and circumstances of the particular case to determine the amount spent. We use a "reasonable" standard all the time in law, it seems to me that this would be another good place to use it.

[ QUOTE ]
A perfectly appropriate answer to my question would be nothing is wrong

[/ QUOTE ]
If I would have just answered that way, then we wouldn't have been having this wonderful discussion, would we? I love discussing things like this with people from various viewpoints. I'll often agitate a little to stir the pot and get discussion flowing. I doubt that a one word answer of "Nothing" would have expressed my views as well as my response, but I could be wrong. I hate to harp on this, but some of the original replies suggested I "read too much" into your question. Had I just responded "nothing," what would you have read in to my answer? Would you have read that I didn't think the costs were too high...maybe "nothing" meant that I agreed that these should be capital punishment cases...maybe the "nothing" indicated that I felt the case was being handled correctly in a procedural sense...maybe the "nothing" meant that I liked the way the article was written. If you ask an open-ended/vague question, it is silly to assume that you won't get varied responses. Now, had you originally asked "how much is too much" or something similar, we could have skipped all of these unpleasantries and just starting discussing the issue (I'm sorry, I just had to be a little bit of a jackass...)

~elwood

[adios]

"Asking how much is enough is an unfair question. The moment that I say, for example, that $500,000 per case is enough, a case will come along where the particular facts and circumstances would warrant more than that. I don't think it is possible to state how much is a reasonable amount in actual dollars. I think using a standard like "reasonable" is much better, it allows for the facts and circumstances of the particular case to determine the amount spent. We use a "reasonable" standard all the time in law, it seems to me that this would be another good place to use it. "

What is resonable? You still haven't answered the question. The answer is that you don't know what's reasonable in this case. So originally you trash me for not wanting due process and not want people to have a fair trial because I say something is probably wrong with $500,000. At least I can provide some points of reference that make this amount seem unreasonable.

"(I'm sorry, I just had to be a little bit of a jackass...)"

That's the understatement of the year. Let's go and trash somebody and imply that they want to circumvent the legal process when the truth of the matter is that all I have done is question why a large amount money, an amount of money that is certainly not available to all to defend themselves, an amount of money that you have provided absolutely no justification for, so you can have a little fun. At best very underhanded on your part.

[adios]

Sniper Suspect Muhammad Argues Own Case (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031021/ap_on_re_us/sniper_shootings_trial&cid=519&ncid=716)

What's up with this? I guess he didn't like the way his lawyers were handling his case. Looks like it's a "slam dunk" for the prosecution now.

Sniper Suspect Muhammad Argues Own Case
41 minutes ago

Add U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo!

By MATTHEW BARAKAT, Associated Press Writer

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - Sniper suspect John Allen Muhammad won the right to serve as his own lawyer Monday in a surprise, last-minute request at his murder trial. He broke a year of stony silence by proclaiming his innocence in a rambling opening statement and asking a witness: "Have you ever seen me shoot anyone?"


AP Photo


AP Photo
Slideshow: Sniper Case

D.C. Sniper Suspect to Represent Himself
(AP Video)


It was not clear why Muhammad decided to fire his lawyers, who will serve as standby counsel in the first trial to come out of last year's sniper spree. Just last week, Muhammad told the judge that he was satisfied with his attorneys.

Muhammad's decision to represent himself in the death penalty case means he could end up cross-examining his accusers, perhaps survivors of the shootings.

In his 20-minute opening statement, Muhammad said nothing about the shootings except to deny involvement.

"I know what happened. I know what didn't happen. They're basing what they said about me on a theory. If we monitor (the evidence) step by step, it will all show I had nothing to do with these crimes," he told the jury.

Muhammad, 42, is charged in the slaying of Dean Harold Meyers, a 53-year-old Vietnam veteran who was gunned down outside a northern Virginia gas station last October. He was the seventh victim in a three-week shooting spree that left 10 people dead in Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C.

Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, 18, were arrested last Oct. 24 at a highway rest stop in Maryland. Prosecutors have said the shootings were part of a plot to extort $10 million from the government.

Malvo was in the courtroom for about two minutes Monday to allow a prosecution witness to identify him.

Prosecutors say Malvo has made several statements to police and jail guards in which he confessed involvement in many of the attacks. But Muhammad barely spoke to investigators, and offered only terse, one-word answers to questions in many pretrial hearings.

Muhammad spoke at length during his opening statement about the nature of truth, saying at one point, "Jesus said, `Ye shall know the truth.'" He also said he hopes to be found innocent "by the grace of Allah."

"There's three truths. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I always thought there was just one truth," he said. "The facts should help us identify what's a lie, what's not a lie."

He also spoke about his children, whom he said he "loves very much."

He said he once punished his daughter for eating chocolate cookies, only to find out later that the daughter had not disobeyed him. Similarly, he said, he is being persecuted by authorities who do not know the truth behind the sniper spree.

Muhammad asked the jury to pay close attention to the facts because "my life and my son's life is on the line," apparently a reference to Malvo. Muhammad and Malvo, 18, are not related, but have referred to each other as father and son.

Later, a Manassas bank employee, Linda Thompson, testified she saw Muhammad and Malvo outside her bank, near the shooting scene, shortly before Meyers was killed. Prosecutors brought in Malvo, in an orange jumpsuit, for the woman to identify.

Muhammad asked the woman why she thought the two were suspicious.

"Was it because we was black that you remember us?" he asked. She denied that race was an issue.



It was the second time Malvo and Muhammad had been in court together this month. At an Oct. 1 pretrial hearing for Muhammad, Malvo invoked his constitutional protection against self-incrimination when asked if he knew the fellow suspect.

On Monday, Muhammad declined to cross-examine the victim's brother, Larry Meyers, who testified about Dean Meyers' life, including his military service in Vietnam, and identified his brother from a gruesome crime-scene photo.

At the end of the day, standby lawyer Jonathan Shapiro complained that prosecutors were improperly eliciting testimony geared to generate sympathy for Meyers — testimony he said would be appropriate only at sentencing. But Millette said Shapiro, as standby counsel, was not permitted to make such an argument.

After the hearing, Shapiro declined comment on Muhammad's decision to represent himself.

The first witness was Mark Spicer, a sergeant major in the British army with extensive expertise as a sniper. Muhammad objected, saying he had been given no notice of Spicer's testimony. Prosecutor Paul Ebert said he is not required to provide such notice, and the judge agreed.

Spicer testified that a sniper's "main weapon is his ability to spread terror over a much larger force than himself." He added that snipers work in two-man teams, and that it would be nearly impossible to be successful working alone.

Muhammad again unsuccessfully objected to Spicer's testimony, saying it was irrelevant unless Spicer could show Muhammad — an Army veteran of the Gulf War (news - web sites) — underwent the same type of training that Spicer described.

Under cross-examination, Muhammad asked Spicer, "Have you ever seen me shoot anyone?" He also asked whether potential sniper tools like walkie-talkies, earplugs, maps and a video recorder also could have benign uses, like keeping tabs on his son at a mall.

Spicer agreed, but that opened the door for Ebert later to grab a Bushmaster rifle — apparently the same one authorities believe was used in the sniper shootings — and ask sarcastically, "Have you ever seen anyone walking around in a mall carrying something like that?"

In granting Muhammad's request to represent himself, Circuit Judge LeRoy F. Millette Jr. told the jury that defense attorneys Peter Greenspun and Shapiro would be there only to assist Muhammad.

Assistant prosecutor James Willett then began his opening statement, silently assembling a replica of the weapon authorities believe was used. Willett told the jury he plans to link Muhammad and Malvo to most of the sniper shootings. After Muhammad's arrest, he said, "ordinary people going about ordinary tasks would be able to do so without fear for their very lives."

Willett then explained the importance of a spotter's role in a sniper shooting, which will be an important issue at trial. Defense lawyers have argued that Malvo fired the fatal shot in the Oct. 9, 2002, slaying of Meyers. Because of that, they argue that Virginia law prohibits imposing the death penalty against Muhammad on one of the two capital murder counts he faces.

But prosecutors say Muhammad's role in the shooting was so direct that he might as well have pulled the trigger.

Willett showed the jury a diagram of the intersection where Meyers was shot, and said the fatal shot came from across the street.

"It was a distance of about 80 yards," Willett said. "You can see how important a spotter would be" to help locate and point out a target to the shooter.

Malvo goes on trial separately next month in another killing.

Muhammad's trial was moved to Virginia Beach after defense lawyers argued that every northern Virginia resident could be considered a victim because of the fear the shootings caused.

___

Associated Press writer Sonja Barisic contributed to this report.

[Roy Hobbs]

1. This has probably already been said, but $125 is a ludicrously low rate for defense counsel. This is especially true in a death penalty case, where the required experience level is much higher. I am a first year attorney, and I get billed out at $180-$200.

2. This is one of the problems with the death penalty...it's so expensive to administer. Leaving aside all of the moral arguments for and against the death penalty, I'd sure rather my tax dollars spent on something else. (And to answer the obvious rejoinder, the data is pretty clear that it is more expensive to seek the death penalty than to put someone in prison for life without parole).

RH

[adios]

John Muhammad defense calls 5 witnesses for 2 hours total of testimony in his defense; prosecution calls 130 some witnesses I believe; John Muhammad defense team states prosecution hasn't proved their case after the prosectuion completes their presentation; the defense collects over $400,000 for the defense presented; and the jury returns with a guilty verdict on all counts in 6.5 hours.

Malvo is employing an insanity defense as he's already admitted to the shootings. One more post at the end of his trial to wrap up a loose end on this forum.