2008 Woodie Awards
Alabama refuses aid to indigent death row inmates
Amanda Pressley
Issue date: 4/13/07 Section: World
- Page 1 of 2 next >
"Anthony Tyson is a death row prisoner in Alabama who like many death row prisoners in Alabama could not find a lawyer for state court litigation before his federal statute of limitations was about to expire," said Director of Equal Justice Initiative for Alabama Bryan Stevenson to the United States Senate Judiciary Committee in 2005, as read from Senate transcripts. "The state court judge did nothing for eleven months."
This month the Supreme Court will hear the case of 200 Alabama death row inmates.
The inmates claim that the rights guaranteed to them by both the Sixth and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, the right to due process and equal protection of the law, are being infringed upon.
Alabama, unlike any other state in the United States, refuses to provide indigent death row inmates with lawyers.
This push for national requirements of lawyers for death row inmates is only the latest in a series of moves for nationalized criminal policy.
"Criminal constitutional rights are moving from decentralized in the states to national courts," said Assistant Professor of Political Science Kyle Dell, teacher of a constitutional law course. "It really depends on how far you want to go on nationalizing criminal proceedings. What the court is struggling with is the degree that they want to continue this."
The forthcoming case is not the first time cases related to criminal proceedings have come before the Supreme Court.
In 1963, Clarence Earl Gideon, accused of burglary of a Florida pool hall, came before the court regarding the denial of legal counsel to him.
Ruling in his favor, the court stated that indigent criminal defendants had the right to free legal counsel for their trials and first series of appeals.
However, this ruling does not apply to anyone continuing to appeal or issuing a habeas petition challenging an unjust sentencing.
The 1989 Supreme Court case of Murray v. Giarratano ruled that the appointment of lawyers to the cases of indigent death row inmates was not constitutionally required.
This month the Supreme Court will hear the case of 200 Alabama death row inmates.
The inmates claim that the rights guaranteed to them by both the Sixth and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, the right to due process and equal protection of the law, are being infringed upon.
Alabama, unlike any other state in the United States, refuses to provide indigent death row inmates with lawyers.
This push for national requirements of lawyers for death row inmates is only the latest in a series of moves for nationalized criminal policy.
"Criminal constitutional rights are moving from decentralized in the states to national courts," said Assistant Professor of Political Science Kyle Dell, teacher of a constitutional law course. "It really depends on how far you want to go on nationalizing criminal proceedings. What the court is struggling with is the degree that they want to continue this."
The forthcoming case is not the first time cases related to criminal proceedings have come before the Supreme Court.
In 1963, Clarence Earl Gideon, accused of burglary of a Florida pool hall, came before the court regarding the denial of legal counsel to him.
Ruling in his favor, the court stated that indigent criminal defendants had the right to free legal counsel for their trials and first series of appeals.
However, this ruling does not apply to anyone continuing to appeal or issuing a habeas petition challenging an unjust sentencing.
The 1989 Supreme Court case of Murray v. Giarratano ruled that the appointment of lawyers to the cases of indigent death row inmates was not constitutionally required.
Be the first to comment on this story