Maryland, Maryland, Maryland. From the snipers in October to an upset gubernatorial election in November, the state has been a hotbed of controversy and media attention lately. That attention grew Monday as the U.S. Supreme Court decided to review death row cases in which the convicted person pleaded "bad lawyering," beginning with the case of Maryland death row inmate Kevin Wiggins. Wiggins' case should have been a non-issue. Any time a man's life is at stake the U.S. judicial system should do everything in its power to ensure it's punishing the right person and not wrongly taking the life of an innocent.
Wiggins was convicted for robbing and drowning 77-year-old Florence Lacs in 1988. Although no evidence linked Wiggins to the crime, according to CNN.com, the 27-year-old was seen talking to the victim the day of her death and later found driving her car and using her credit cards to buy gifts for his girlfriend. Wiggins' current lawyer, Donald B. Verilli Jr., claims that Wiggins' original lawyer, a public defender, was "inexperienced and overworked." Therefore, Verilli accurately contends, Wiggins was not awarded his constitutional right to a fair trial with adequate defense.
Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to review Wiggins v. Cocoran, the case may very well become the cornerstone for deciding ineffective counsel claims in all cases. Those claims, however, should be clear. Anyone charged with any level of crime that could lead to jail time is guaranteed counsel, even if they are unable to afford a lawyer. If that right is denied to them at any time during the process of their trial, the convicted should automatically be guaranteed a right to a new trial with adequate and effective counsel.
This should be especially true in cases dealing with capital punishment. The sanctity of human life is a precious thing and should not be easily disposed of. If a defendant, like Wiggins, can clearly show that he was at a disadvantage by not having effective counsel, the inconvenience of a new trial is small compared to what is at stake. Yes, court time and money would be used up. But a few days and few thousand dollars is worth much less than a human life. If financial and time sacrifices must be made to ensure the right criminal is being put to death, then so be it. To avoid the floodgates that a "bad lawyering" defense could open, the Supreme Court must establish a clear definition of what exactly constitutes inadequate representation.
Of course, all this is much easier said then done. According to FoxNews.com, the American Bar Association is already weary of the backup in courts, and no one likes having their taxes raised. The government, however, must evaluate the flawed judicial system and make immediate changes. To begin with, Congress must stop holding up the nomination process of judges. The sooner they make decisions, whether for or against one of President Bush's nominations, the sooner progress can be made in getting new judges in place. The advantages of appointing new judges are undeniable. Already overworked judges will see a lighter caseload and cases will precede at a quicker rate. In regard to money, the judicial branch will have to either decide to slim down their expenses and economize or request a bigger budget. Either way, the miniscule amount of cash doled out to help improve the system is well worth it.
Retrials can be prevented altogether, however, if the root of the problem
-- inadequate defenses -- is eliminated.
Public defenders in this nation are extremely overworked, and thus cannot always supply adequate counsel. Accused poor people have no real recourse for a public defender with shortfalls. They can always request a lawyer from the state, but that does not ensure they will be given a quality one. As budget deficits increase and hiring freezes are enacted, public defenders' workloads will just grow larger and more overbearing. On the other hand, a defendant who is able to obtain their own lawyer can easily find a competent one if the first representative shows signs of failure. In a country where the poverty-stricken account for a disproportionate number of convicted felons and are the majority of defendants in capital cases ("Do bad lawyers warrant second chance for death row inmates?" CNN.com, Nov. 18), the government must do better to provide the underclass with better representation.
Here, the government is left no choices in their plan of action. They must hire new lawyers to balance out a substantial workload and allow public defenders to do their job to the best of their ability. The judicial system will forever be skewed and unfair if the less fortunate are denied a right to a fair trial because they cannot afford a competent lawyer.
Few doubt Wiggins' guilt. "My own view is that [Wiggins] probably committed the heinous offense for which he stands convicted," said 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III (www.cnn.com). Wiggins' guilt is not at issue, however. What matters is that he be given a fair trial. In reviewing his case, the Supreme Court should unanimously grant him another trial. That way, if the verdict is the same, the punishment can be carried out with no doubts and no injustices.
(Maggie Bowden's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily.
She can be reached at mbowden@
cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
