Nathaniel Woods and the execution of effective defense
Last Thursday night, the State of Alabama executed 44-year old Nathaniel Woods of Birmingham. He had been convicted in 2004 as an accomplice to the murder of three police officers in a case that has since been exposed as full of errors, holes, incompetence, unfairness, and very probably corruption. Among the many outstanding failures stands one of our nation’s ugliest judicial deficiencies: the deprivation of adequate criminal defense for those unable to afford it.
In cases like Woods’, that deficiency can translate into the deprivation of life at the hands of the state.
Multiple reports have detailed the Woods case (see further reading below). Woods himself did not murder the officers involved, by all accounts, including the State’s and that of the man who actually did pull the trigger. Alabama, however, allows for capital punishment not only for capital murderers, but also for accomplices in some aggravated circumstances. Further, Alabama is a holdout in allowing capital punishment to proceed even when the jury is not unanimous. The judge in this case affirmed it anyway.
More to our point, the prosecutor originally offered Woods a plea deal that would have resulted in 25 years in prison. Woods’ court-appointed attorney, however, crucially misinformed him that the State would have to prove he pulled the trigger in order to apply the death penalty anyway, and he thus urged Woods not to take the plea. Woods took his advice, then went to trial, was convicted as an accomplice, and sentenced to death anyway.
Worse yet, subsequent attorneys during appeals fumbled on multiple occasions, missing deadlines, neglecting to inform Woods, and making other crucial errors. A final appellate attorney, who has his act together, was unable to surmount the impediments, despite being able to show corruption on the part of police, overt bias from the trial judge (literally during his instructions to the jury), and more on top of the failures of the previous attorneys.
In short, aside from a lot of other problems, it is hard to escape the conclusion that public defenders crucially and on multiple counts utterly failed Nathaniel Woods. Even if he was ultimately guilty in some way under Alabama law, his right to a fair trial was violated repeatedly by far sub-par legal defense.
And this is far from an isolated case. Unfairness is systemic throughout this aspect of the system, built into it from very early on. It is time the Christian and conservative community take cognizance of it, and start discussing a real remedy.
The shame of public defense in the U.S.A.
Common sense seems to dictate that in order for justice to be truly fair, both the prosecution and the defense ought to have equal access to everything, equally adequate funding and resources, and equally adequate time. Among other things, it should be equal. And while common sense would also seem to dictate that this is the general state of affairs in the U.S., that sense would be badly wrong. The accusatory side of justice has long enjoyed far greater advantage in nearly every way.
It is difficult to fathom that we had a running practice of public prosecution in this country for over two centuries before we even had a single local public defender’s office (1913–14). It was another half century (Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963) before our Supreme Court recognized that the Sixth-Amendment right “to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence” means we probably should fund defense as we had been doing prosecution all along, especially for the poor and marginalized. It was yet another 21 years before SCOTUS had to tell our governments that, oh, by the way, that public defense also has to be reasonably effective.
There are historical and cultural reasons for why things have developed the way they have, but the result has been that criminal defense has always suffered greatly in comparison to prosecution. Prosecutors have nearly unlimited power in regard to charges, resources with police for investigation and more, as well as immunity from costly or deadly errors. In contrast, public defense has always received less pay, tremendously impossible caseloads, and poor support.
The insanity of the burden placed upon defenders appears in the lone set of recommended caseloads, provided by a non-governmental agency. The total (including felonies, misdemeanors, juvenile cases, mental health cases, and appeals) recommended annual maximum caseload for single attorneys in a public defenders office was 1,075 cases. That is three cases per day . . . if you never take a single day off, including Sundays. In short, for any single person, that is an impossible load. ((See Furst, “A Fair Fight: Achieving Indigent Defense Resource Parity,” 7–8.))
Yet some public defenders far exceed it. In just one instance, a public defender notes that on one routine day he had to squeeze 14 cases into one 3-hour court session. The math comes out to about 12 minutes per client. In another case, a now well-publicized New Orleans office saw defenders handling upwards of 19,000 cases in a year. ((See Furst, “A Fair Fight: Achieving Indigent Defense Resource Parity,” 1.))
Meanwhile, well-funded, well-salaried, and strongly supported prosecutors can knowingly sling multiple charges and additional higher charges at hapless defendants purposefully to intimidate them into plea bargaining guilty to “lesser” charges. Facing hamstrung defense forces, the offer is often taken. It is a very common practice; some would even say it is the standard.
The Nathaniel Woods case demonstrates the results of such factors when compounded in action. His case was extreme, but not isolated. Around 80 percent of criminal defendants are indigent and require public defenders. Yet public defenders are so overloaded that in most cases, they barely have time to meet with clients before arraignment. This leads to prisoners unnecessarily sitting in jail for extended periods of time before trial, which statistically leads further to higher conviction rates, longer sentences, and increased recidivism. ((See Furst, “A Fair Fight: Achieving Indigent Defense Resource Parity,” 3.)) Likewise, quality of defense suffers and wrongful convictions increase.
A matter of conscience and action
How we got in this mess can be explained to various degrees, but the greater issue is that we are in this mess. Likewise, we can have discussions about how legal counsel and trials ultimately ought to be funded. Christians, conservatives, libertarians, and others may argue all day long about private-versus public funding, etc. But the unique mess we have is a product of multiple historical and cultural forces unique to America, and we will not change it easily anytime soon. The most effective stop gap to defend the weak is at the very least to equalize the forces and resources in the name of justice.
Whether this means cutting prosecutors’ budgets, increasing defenders’ budgets, or something more sophisticated, justice demands it.
Christian readers will want to consider how the Bible directs us to handle criminal trial matters. It gives few details for prosecution or defense, but it certainly demands that when faced with criminal matters, “you shall inquire diligently” (Deut. 17:4). This standard, it would seem, is to apply to both sides, which means that the civil authorities themselves need to provide substantial and adequate attention to both sides. Favoring the prosecution, as we have done for centuries now, in terms of both resources and public psychology (being “tough on crime!”), is therefore simply unacceptable.
The Scriptures also tell us not to allow prejudice in favor of the rich or the poor (Lev. 19:15). Nevertheless, the admonition appears much more frequently, out of both likelihood and necessity, to deliver the poor and weak from the power of the rich and connected. The justice system is directed to give a special emphasis on defense of the poor and needy: “Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy” (Prov. 31:8–9).
It is imperative that we not only give special attention to the poor, needy, and neglected, but also that we make a point to “open your mouth” to do so. Pulpits should be ringing with calls to establish justice in the land, and right along with pro-life issues and equal weights and measures we should hear calls for our justice system to ensure adequate and equally robust defense for all people, especially the marginalized.
***
For further reading:
https://newsone.com/3907383/nathaniel-woods-innocent-alabama-man-execution-cop-killings/