Moffat said Utah Code requires attorneys who represent death-row petitioners to be nearly experts in this area of the law, which he isn't. So he has asked 4th District Judge Lynn Davis to allow him to pull out.

"Built into our statutory system is a requirement that a lawyer be an expert in the area of post-conviction litigation before they ever take on a case of this magnitude," Moffat said. "Because when you are representing a death-row petitioner, the stakes are as high as they can possibly be."

He said it was foolish for him to take the case initially, and that he thought if he didn't, no one else would. Davis said he will rule by April 1 whether or not Moffat can step down.

Brunker said they would argue that if Moffat withdraws and no one else takes the case, the provision in SB277 is triggered and Carter must go forward on his own or the court should dismiss his appeal.

As a way to encourage attorneys to stay, Brunker said SB277 also increases funding for death-row attorneys, providing $125 an hour at a cap of $60,000, although that total figure can be addressed, Brunker said.

But that amount is still far too small, said Moffat, who cites financial hardship as his second reason to withdraw.

"The $60,000 cap is wholly inadequate to fund these kind of post-conviction cases," Moffat said. "I don't believe there are going to be any lawyers who agree to do these cases for that amount."

That amount would barely cover Moffat's small law firm's expenses, he said.

"We defend unpopular clients and unpopular causes," he said. "Because what we do is so unpopular, it's hard to get people to see our side of the ledger."

Brunker disagrees and said the Attorney General's Office studied payments across the nation and found the average to be right around $125 an hour for post-conviction attorney work.

Davis also recently ruled on a lengthy memorandum, plus 350 pages of exhibits Moffat submitted, believing there were parallels between Carter's case and another death-row Utah case, Menzies v. Galetka.

Davis granted the state's motion to strike the supplementation, stating that the supplementation "suffers from dispositive and inexcusable procedural defects," and that it violated a rule of criminal procedure as to "length and timeliness."

---

E-mail: sisraelsen@desnews.com