« Smiling, Frowning and Cringing
In Vino Veritas…et Vita? »



Osborn to be put to death tonight in Georgia: Case calls right to competent legal representation into question

June 4th, 2008
By JOE WINDISH, Technology Editor

Print Print

I keep saying that we’re not as racist as we’re afraid we are and that when we do find instances of overt racism we have the capacity to cope and to act. Georgia is now confronted with just such an instance.

As the AJC is reporting that Curtis Osborne’s final meal tonight will be a cheeseburger, Alan Berlow writing in Slate wonders do defendants in Georgia have any right at all to competent representation?

During his five years as a justice of the Georgia Supreme Court, four of them as chief justice, Norman S. Fletcher says he voted to affirm “countless” murder convictions and a significant number of death sentences. But today Judge Fletcher is having second thoughts about one man he voted to send to the executioner in June 1993.

Curtis Osborne is scheduled to be put to death by the state of Georgia [tonight] night for a gruesome double murder he committed in 1990. There is no question that Osborne is guilty. But Fletcher says neither Osborne’s jury nor the Georgia Supreme Court knew the full truth about his history at the time they made their decisions. Most importantly, he says, they didn’t know that Osborne’s lawyer was a racist and had never put in the time needed to present his client’s mental problems and abused past, having concluded that, “The little nigger deserves the death penalty.”

On Monday, despite a letter from Fletcher and other testimony, the Georgia parole board rejected without comment Osborne’s appeal to have his sentence commuted to life in prison. This is a monument to the bankruptcy of the constitutional right to be represented by an attorney.

Also among the evidence indicating that the lawyer Georgia assigned to Curtis Osborne was racist, a plea bargain under which Osborne would have received a life sentence in exchange for a guilty plea, withheld by the lawyer because he said Mr. Osborne “deserved to die.”

The man making the charges is himself an inmate with a scary criminal history, but there’s plenty of corroborating evidence for those (like the chief justice) willing to look. Or read on.

In an OpEd in yesterday’s AJC, Clinton FBI Director William Sessions wrote that the Osborne sentence is a stain on justice:

When a person accused of murder is failed by his or her attorney, our faith in the verdict —- and in the criminal justice system itself —- is shaken. The finality of capital punishment demands complete confidence in the conviction and sentencing processes. Anything less is a mockery of the expectation of justice held by the citizens of this state, and Osborne’s case is blemished by a defense that leaves us anything but confident.

It is, unfortunately, too late for that expectation to be met.

On Monday, the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles denied Osborne’s final appeal for clemency. On Wednesday, barring some unanticipated intervention, he will be executed by lethal injection.

The only thing more shameful than the failure to defend a man facing execution is that those in power turned a blind eye to that injustice.

Georgia has moved quickly to resume executions since the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of lethal injections. We were the first state to hold an execution after the decision. Only two other states - Mississippi and Virginia - have put inmates to death. Texas is about to leap ahead. (More on what’s next for the death penalty via Jeralyn at Talk Left.)

Changing the culture here will be difficult. But Dallas County, TX, may be an instructive parallel. There District Attorney Craig Watkins, a Democrat and the first black DA in the history of Texas, set up an unprecedented cooperative effort with the Texas Innocence Project to re-examined hundreds of cases. (For more on that see here, here, and here.)

Politics matters.



This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 4th, 2008 at 5:33 am and is filed under Human Rights, Death Penalty, Legal Matters, Black/African-American, Law Enforcement, Racism, Race, Society, Minorities, Law & Legal Matters. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 1 Comment

    • ^
    • v
    I oppose the death penalty on principle, but even if that weren't so, I would oppose it on the basis of results.

    Aside from racism, the drive for law enforcement and prosecutors to make career points by stamping a case 'solved', no matter by what devious means, corrupt the whole justice system. That could be remedied if we had anyhting like adequate representation guarantees.
    But we don't.
    We kill those people lacking the means to cry 'foul'.
 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« Smiling, Frowning and Cringing
In Vino Veritas…et Vita? »


By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.