My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/7/1997
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1997
>
10/7/1997
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:10:20 PM
Creation date
6/17/2015 10:15:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/07/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
131
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
f�UUb�iK � CuC <br />T" <br />rsrtsae, 33617-1632 chmind <br />i613 98767]1 •� "MGM <br />IVED <br />!Aor 0owe of fyraentadVes SEP 9 go? <br />victor D. Crist J10"°°ma <br />itepraseatadw, both District QPY <br />Augwt?'t,t99� <br />Tho Hoaonble Sid J. Wbke, Clark <br />Florida Supreme Court <br />$00 South Duval Stem <br />Tallahassee, K s2iwiqu <br />RE- Proposed amendment to Norids Roles of Judicial Administration — <br />Minimum Standards for Appointed Co■nsd in Capital Cam Case No. 90,635. <br />Den Mr. White: <br />This letter is ill response to the Court's request for comments conceraine the above -referenced proposal. The <br />Proposed rule raises serious legislative concerns. Furdw, it appears to invade the polity -setting sphere that is <br />"Clusively the LO&ISture's. The rule is dewly more thm procedural; it atakes substantive policy outside the <br />Court's propercase and controversy' &&work <br />The Mis would rag** that dupes tutoruoys in capital cases must have hats a spec& cumber of "tenons and <br />"+per" jun► mals. The temp -serious ad eomploe' is not dadoM, leaving room for varying interpretations. It <br />u uvAcly that W twaaty judWW eirarita will iatwpm attd apply these Wm wnma ady. Bvea if they did, them <br />would loevitably be tdt W=W sad protracted appeals over this and caber ambiguous, undefined to =14 the <br />proposed Yule. The tau thing our justice syum needs is aaore guru& for appeals and delays. <br />71m reap indbW liar selecong (soyas would be delegated to the eoadict committee of each of the twenty circuits. <br />However, the proposed Vile eoatains strict, vague, and =Wuted requirements, which could cause difficulty in <br />davcloping and maiptaimng alt adequate number of attorneys who area such strict r quirements. Many Board <br />Cg d W and other highly Sided c imind dmfaute lawyers might not meat @A of these town ots. This problam could <br />be exacerbated by the rule's limitation of no more than two pending cases per attorney. <br />Fa OUR*a lawyers Will denrotutrate the "necessary► proficiency and cone titmcnt which exemplify the quality of <br />representation appropriate to capita! casts." The cute docs not provide guidance to assist the conflict committee to <br />mtsure that a partrct*w h"W meets this standard, oven ifthe committee can define the standard. Also. the required <br />minim°"' of niers "quW1119d" jury trials for lead counsel would cause problems, especially in rural arae. <br />Under the proposed rule, each cirarit would be free to impose WSW "mipitn tm' standard3 of its own. It =Wd be <br />p°=be dm who quaW under ode Isagusge oftlte ntle mipt not qusllty !p a drtun wWClt created tdgher <br />standards. It could also be possible for ipolvidual d malts to develop such uoressoaable minimum standards that no <br />lawyd', no matter how effecgve, aauld meet them T2>ia would disrupt the: adiumm tstion of justice in tbese cases. <br />TIN A& abo that defendants in a death penalty aur have two trial lawyers Cans dal of a lead counsel and <br />a ea-eauuu+ 4 csgardlesa CUM 44nipimdty of tbo z4vidual one. A blanket determination that alt death penalty Oates <br />r°quue two trial IMM without repW to other factors is insppropriate. Counties could be responsible for tis can <br />of two def== lawyers at the trial and penalty pbaa in aA such cava, a en though it is out constitutionally required. <br />In ad'aet the rule grants a defenda n in a death peoeity woo a subeaadve right to an additional trial lawyer. There <br />is no aMdate to support such a fequkeown. wr any showing that are wellValiised trial couned is inadequate in <br />all eases. <br />This rule clearly tatcampaaaaa substaativo policy rrvn:<deratioas, iac{udirtg minimum standards wbiob are not <br />cottsisteat with those desalted sufficient in rMent legislation witich reorganized the 001ce of Capital Collateral <br />Rtspresemove. Chapter 97-313, Laws of Florids, no miaiastms erhmia for appointed and amplayeai eoliateral <br />counsai in Sections 3 and 4; the proposed rola would affmivay amend this legislation. <br />Although the rule states that it applies ody to appointed counsel, It is foreseeable that the Court will gaialdy be <br />Presented with argtumMU that the same minimum standards should apply to public Defenders' Occas ad the Capital <br />Collatwel l't4WW CouascL, wh'tdt could impact apluopdatloau said yield even a Sava$ shortage of'qustiliad' <br />atWanaya. <br />OCTOBER 7, 1997 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.