A recent edi­to­r­i­al in the Miami Herald applaud­ed a court deci­sion find­ing that the costs of rep­re­s­en­ing defen­dants in Florida death penal­ty cas­es should be kept sep­a­rate from the judges’ annu­al bud­get. A state judge held it would be uncon­sti­tu­tion­al to have judges mak­ing deci­sions about attor­neys’ fees when the mon­ey for such expens­es comes from the judges’ own resources. The edi­to­r­i­al stat­ed, We depend on the court sys­tem to dis­pense jus­tice — peri­od. Not jus­tice on a bud­get, not jus­tice on the cheap, not jus­tice with ka-ching’ in the back of a judge’s mind.” The costs for­mer­ly came out of gen­er­al state rev­enue. Death penal­ty attor­ney David Markus said the law would have made judges think twice about pay­ing a lawyer, know­ing that he or she has to also think about pay­ing his sec­re­tary or buy­ing copi­er paper.” The edi­to­r­i­al called on law­mak­ers to heed the rec­om­men­da­tions of the Florida Innocence Commission, which made sev­er­al rec­om­men­da­tions to cor­rect the high rate of wrong­ful con­vic­tions in the state. The edi­tors wrote, Lawmakers tru­ly inter­est­ed in reform would take the rec­om­men­da­tions seri­ous­ly, even though they require more-ade­quate fund­ing. Instead, the Legislature has steadi­ly chipped away at courts’ bud­gets for the past six years, while the vol­ume of cas­es has increased. That’s a stum­bling block to real reform.” Florida leads the coun­try in exon­er­a­tions from death row, with 23 wrong­ful con­vic­tions over­turned since 1973. Read full editorial below.

True costs of justice

We depend on the court sys­tem to dis­pense jus­tice — peri­od. Not jus­tice on a bud­get, not jus­tice on the cheap, not jus­tice with ka-ching” in the back of a judge’s mind.

Nor should jus­tice be denied because the funds sim­ply aren’t there.

So applaud the deci­sion of Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Victoria Sigler to reject a state law that ties the legal bills for defend­ing indi­gent clients fac­ing the death penal­ty to state judges’ annu­al bud­gets. It’s a vio­la­tion of the state Constitution, she ruled.

In March, state law­mak­ers sought to cur­tail the expens­es of a pool of pri­vate attor­neys appoint­ed to rep­re­sent death-penal­ty defen­dants too poor to pay for legal assistance.

The attor­neys are paid a fixed — and low — rate, which will entice few tru­ly sea­soned lawyers. Senate Bill 1960 man­dat­ed that pay­ment of any over­runs, which used to come from state rev­enue, now would come from the courts’ bud­gets. That’s not an insignif­i­cant expense. Miami-Dade County, for instance, has paid more than $700,000 of its $1.2 mil­lion allot­ted by the state for such legal bills.

But the law also cross­es the line that sep­a­rates the judi­cia­ry and the state Legislature, which, accord­ing to Judge Sigler, is sup­posed to allo­cate all the funds for indi­gent clients. There should be no onus on a judge, charged with impar­tial­i­ty in inter­pret­ing and car­ry­ing out the laws of the state, to count pen­nies — not that any would. Still, as pri­vate attor­ney David S. Markus told The Miami Herald, the law makes judges think twice about pay­ing a lawyer, know­ing that he or she has to also think about pay­ing his sec­re­tary or buy­ing copier paper.”

Mr. Markus, along with Terry Lenamon, rep­re­sents Gregory Martin, who faces the death penal­ty if con­vict­ed of the 2000 killing of teenag­er Cynteria Phillips.

Defendants fac­ing the death penal­ty are not the most sym­pa­thet­ic peo­ple in the world. But they have the right to make a case that they shouldn’t receive the state’s ultimate punishment.

Then, there’s this: The state of Florida has a sor­ry his­to­ry of con­vict­ing defen­dants who are inno­cent of the crimes with which they have been charged. In fact, accord­ing to the Death Penalty Information Center, Florida leads the nation in exon­er­a­tions of wrong­ly con­vict­ed inmates from Death Row, with 23 freed since 1973.

Earlier this year, the Florida Innocence Commission delved into the trou­bling instances of false con­fes­sions, misiden­ti­fi­ca­tion by eye­wit­ness­es and lack of evidence preservation.

The Commission, cre­at­ed by the state Supreme Court in 2009, issued sev­er­al rec­om­men­da­tions to cor­rect these prob­lems. They include show­ing sus­pects’ pho­tos to an eye­wit­ness one at a time, instead of a six-pack” line­up; requir­ing police to record all in-cus­tody inter­ro­ga­tions; and telling juries when a wit­ness is a jail­house infor­mant who will be reward­ed with a short­er sen­tence for testifying.

Lawmakers tru­ly inter­est­ed in reform would take the rec­om­men­da­tions seri­ous­ly, even though they require more-adequate funding.

Instead, the Legislature has steadi­ly chipped away at courts’ bud­gets for the past six years, while the vol­ume of cas­es has increased. That’s a stum­bling block to real reform.

Gov. Rick Scott’s appeal-prone admin­is­tra­tion is like­ly to chal­lenge Judge Sigler’s rul­ing. That would be unfor­tu­nate and cost­ly — and it would do lit­tle to serve the cause of dis­pens­ing jus­tice in the state.

(“True costs of jus­tice,” Miami Herald, edi­to­r­i­al, October 30, 2012). See Representation and Innocence. Read more Editorials on the death penalty.

Citation Guide