From Deseret News archives:

Will inmates have to defend selves?

Published: Monday, March 24, 2008 12:19 a.m. MDT
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
PROVO — If an attorney with 20 years of experience feels unqualified to defend a death-row inmate, it's ludicrous to expect the inmate to defend himself, that attorney says. But that's what a new bill, approved in the 2008 legislative session, would require if no other attorney would take the complicated case.

"To expect that a nonlaw-trained death-row petitioner ... could adequately handle these cases is a complete fiction," said Mark Moffat, whose client, Douglas Carter, is on death row. "That provision is as Draconian a provision as exists."

Moffat is referring to the final paragraphs in SB277 — post-conviction remedies act revisions — signed by the governor last Monday, which could greatly affect his client's pending 4th District Court post-conviction relief case.

Among other revisions, the bill states that if no attorney will take a post-conviction relief case for a death-row inmate within 60 days from the request for counsel, the inmate must represent himself or the post-conviction appeal is thrown out and he proceeds toward execution.

Although defense attorneys may see the provision as unacceptable, too many death row cases in Utah are stagnant, said Thomas Brunker, deputy Utah attorney general. Brunker said he hopes the provision will encourage attorneys to stay on the cases and work them through, rather than abandon ship at crucial times.

Story continues below
"The situation we're in with these cases is intolerable," Brunker said. "(They're at) a complete halt. The victims suffer, the people of the state are entitled to a speedy resolution. We have decades-old cases that are just halted and none of these death-row inmates are innocent."

Carter was convicted and sentenced to die in 1986 for the murder of Eva Olesen of Provo — the aunt of a former police chief. He was resentenced in 1992 to death and has been appealing ever since.

He's been tried, convicted and sentenced, plus the Utah Supreme Court's affirmation of those decisions, but Carter's post-conviction relief appeal means he is essentially "suing" Provo's 4th District Court, saying there was a constitutional flaw in either the first conviction or sentence or both, Brunker said.

"Now, he's the plaintiff instead of the state and he has the burden of proof," Brunker said. "But unlike any other plaintiff, he has no incentive to move the case along. The longer (he) can drag that process out, the longer (he) can stay alive."

Brunker labels Moffat's attempt to withdraw as counsel another delay, which Moffat strongly denies.

"The state has this view that we're doing this deliberately, to purposefully delay the proceedings," Moffat said. "It is not true, it has never been true."

Recent comments

As a taxpayer and someone involved directly with the system. I have...

Observer | March 26, 2008 at 9:02 p.m.

Why do our legislators pass stpid laws.

Wasting their time, and...

This will fly in the SupremCourt | March 24, 2008 at 5:49 p.m.

The appellate process is considered a part of the constitutional...

RonRook | March 24, 2008 at 5:03 p.m.

previousnext

Latest comments

Mexicans are not coming here because there are no jobs for them. The border...

Frogs may taste like chicking, but horned frogs don't. Horned frogs are...

BYU leads UNM 17-7 at half

BYU is not the good

I have always found it interesting...that so many who profess to be followers...

Al Gore is laughing all the way to the bank!

they got their game back against wyoming, and maybe feel they can rest on...

Obama pushing to rein in deficit

Spend money like a drunken sailor and when that backfires, pretend you are...

17-13 in the 3rd Qtr. Wow!! Way to show your dominance Koogs!!

Galaxy headed to MLS Cup

No One Cares. Just like the UFL No One Cares.

Half of our debt is from Bush's tax cuts for the rich that we couldn't...

Advertisements
Advertisement