Representation

Overview

The quality of representation a defendant receives in a capital case can make the difference between life and death. Almost all defendants cannot afford to pay for a lawyer, and states differ widely on the standards—if any—for death penalty representation. Accounts of lawyers sleeping or drinking alcohol during the trial, lawyers with racial bias toward their client, lawyers who conduct no investigation or fail to obtain necessary experts, or lawyers simply having no experience with capital cases have been rampant throughout the history of the death penalty.

The right to an attorney is a hallmark of the American judicial system. It is essential that the lawyer be experienced in capital cases, be adequately compensated, and have access to the resources needed to fulfill his or her obligations to the client and the court.

As abuses in the system have been exposed, most states have raised the standards for representation. However, most death-penalty states do not have statewide capital defense organizations, and many counties who are responsible for assigning and compensating lawyers have small budgets and cannot afford the kind of representation a capital case requires.

At Issue

Despite the poor quality of representation in many capital cases, courts have often upheld the convictions and death sentences imposed because of low expectations and the belief that better representation would not have made a difference in the case. Where higher quality counsel and adequate resources have been provided, death sentences have declined dramatically.

What DPIC Offers

DPI has highlighted the key court decisions in this area, as well as the numerous instances in which the system has failed. A number of DPI’s reports discuss the importance of quality representation. The standards for representation approved by the American Bar Association, along with the status of state compliance, are also available.