Civil rights lit­i­ga­tor and death penal­ty expert Ronald J. Tabak recent­ly pub­lished ​“The Private Bar’s Efforts to Secure Proper Representation for those Facing Execution” in the Justice System Journal. The arti­cle presents an in-depth review of the American Bar Association​’s (ABA) role in ensur­ing effec­tive coun­sel in cap­i­tal cas­es. Tabak recounts the ABA’s efforts since the mid-1980’s to secure com­pe­tent rep­re­sen­ta­tion at every state of legal pro­ceed­ings, stat­ing that ​“some­one with­out coun­sel has lit­tle chance of secur­ing redress for con­sti­tu­tion­al vio­la­tions that may have taint­ed a con­vic­tion or death sen­tence.”

The arti­cle explores the par­tic­u­lar prob­lem that exists because the Supreme Court has not rec­og­nized a right to coun­sel in post-con­vic­tion pro­ceed­ings. Death-sen­tenced inmates may lack rep­re­sen­ta­tion after their tri­al and direct appeal even though the legal pro­ceed­ings that fol­low would offer opport­ni­ties to chal­lenge their con­vic­tions and death sen­tences. Mr. Tabak dis­cuss­es the ABA’s efforts to find pro bono lawyers to rep­re­sent death-sen­tenced inmates in post-con­vic­tion pro­ceed­ings, fed­er­al habeas cor­pus pro­ceed­ings, and clemen­cy pro­ceed­ings. ​“Dealing with the issues spe­cif­ic to cap­i­tal cas­es, whether aris­ing from the tri­al record or requir­ing fur­ther inves­ti­ga­tion, requires an exper­tise far beyond that of most crim­i­nal law prac­ti­tion­ers – not to men­tion the civ­il lawyers who pre­dom­i­nate among the vol­un­teers whom the ABA recruits,” explains Tabak. If lawyers do not under­stand the com­plex pro­ce­dures and rules of cap­i­tal cas­es, it ​“can lit­er­al­ly prove fatal to clients.”

(R. Tabak, ​“The Private Bar’s Efforts to Secure Proper Representation for Those Facing Execution,”29 Justice System Journal 356 (2008)). See also Representation and Articles.

Citation Guide