A recent law review arti­cle explores the qual­i­ty of defense rep­re­sen­ta­tion in cap­i­tal cas­es in Tennessee. Authors William Redick, Jr., Bradley Maclean, and M. Shane Truett con­duct­ed an in depth study of Tennessee death penal­ty cas­es in their arti­cle, ​“Pretend Justice – Defense Representation in Tennessee Death Penalty Cases” in the University of Memphis Law Review. The arti­cle argues that Tennessee fails to pro­vide effec­tive defense rep­re­sen­ta­tion in death penal­ty cas­es, cit­ing inef­fec­tive attor­ney qual­i­fi­ca­tion stan­dards, inad­e­quate com­pen­sa­tion and resources for indi­gent cap­i­tal defense rep­re­sen­ta­tion, and inequal­i­ties between defense to pros­e­cu­tion resources. It also exam­ines var­i­ous inher­ent dif­fi­cul­ties defense attor­neys face in death penal­ty cas­es, such as the ​“death qual­i­fi­ca­tion” of jurors. 

(W. Redick, B. MacLean, M. Truett, ​”Pretend Justice – Defense Representation in Tennessee Death Penalty Cases,” 38 University of Memphis Law Review 303 ( 2008)). See Law Reviews and Representation.

Citation Guide