Utah’s Supreme Court recent­ly expressed con­cern that the lack of qual­i­fied defense attor­neys for indi­gent death row inmates could unrav­el cap­i­tal sen­tences. In a unan­i­mous deci­sion in the case of death row inmate Michael Archuleta, Associate Chief Justice Michael Wilkins (pic­tured) said the court might be forced to reverse cap­i­tal sen­tences because the low pay and the com­plex­i­ty of such cas­es have shrunk the pool of Utah attor­neys who will accept them. It falls to us, as the court of last resort in this state, to assure that no per­son is deprived of life, lib­er­ty, or prop­er­ty, with­out the due — and com­pe­tent — process of law,” Wilkins wrote. Without a suf­fi­cient defense, a sen­tence of death can­not be con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly imposed.” He wrote that the jus­tices may soon be forced to reverse a death sen­tence and impose life with­out parole on such grounds if the leg­is­la­ture fails to pro­vide adequate resources.

An excerpt from the opinion follows:

In recent years we have become espe­cial­ly con­cerned with the dimin­ish­ing pool of com­pe­tent coun­sel in cap­i­tal cas­es. There is no accept­able jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for this trend. Competent defense and appel­late coun­sel are guar­an­teed by our con­sti­tu­tion. We can­not allow a defendant’s life to be tak­en by the gov­ern­ment with­out an ade­quate review of the con­vic­tion. Our judi­cial oath to sup­port, pro­tect, and defend the Constitution must, of neces­si­ty, include the require­ment that we take mea­sures with­in our author­i­ty and respon­si­bil­i­ty to see that the man­dates of the Constitution are observed. 

It is the duty of the leg­isla­tive branch to pro­vide for ade­quate defense of cap­i­tal defen­dants, includ­ing suf­fi­cient resources to attract, train, com­pen­sate, and sup­port legal coun­sel. It is left to the leg­isla­tive branch to deter­mine how best to accom­plish this goal. However, it falls to us, as the court of last resort in this state, to assure that no per­son is deprived of life, lib­er­ty, or prop­er­ty, with­out the due — and com­pe­tent — process of law. Without a suf­fi­cient defense, a sen­tence of death can­not be con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly imposed. This basic con­cept is bedrock upon which our con­sti­tu­tion­al government stands.

If, in the future, we find that the unavail­abil­i­ty of com­pe­tent and will­ing coun­sel impedes prompt, con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly sound res­o­lu­tion in cap­i­tal cas­es, we may be forced to hold that the lack of such coun­sel is suf­fi­cient grounds for out­right rever­sal of a cap­i­tal sen­tence and remand for the impo­si­tion of a sen­tence of life in prison with­out the pos­si­bil­i­ty of parole, for which the required degree of sophis­ti­ca­tion and skill reposed in coun­sel is slightly less.

Archuleta v. Galetka, No. 20070228 (Utah S. Ct. Nov. 7, 2008). (P. Manson, Utah’s high court issues death-penal­ty warn­ing: Lack of qual­i­fied defense lawyers could unrav­el cap­i­tal sen­tences,” The Salt Lake Tribune, November 8, 2008). See also Representation and Costs.

Citation Guide