More than two decades after Max Soffar was sen­tenced to die for a Houston-area triple mur­der, an appel­late court has ruled that his court-appoint­ed attor­ney inad­e­quate­ly rep­re­sent­ed him dur­ing his 1980 tri­al and that he deserves to be retried with­in 120 days or freed from Texas’s death row. Although no evi­dence link­ing Soffar to the crime was ever found and his accounts of the mur­ders, con­tained in what are believed to be false con­fes­sions, var­ied vast­ly from sev­er­al eye­wit­ness­es, Soffar’s defense attor­ney failed to pur­sue evi­dence that could have proven his client’s inno­cence. The attor­ney did not inter­view the sole sur­viv­ing wit­ness to the mur­ders nor con­duct a bal­lis­tics inves­ti­ga­tion that could have strength­ened his case. In its opin­ion, the court wrote, ​“Defense coun­sel offered no rea­son­able expla­na­tion for why they did not take advan­tage of these oppor­tu­ni­ties. [It was] like­ly the result of indo­lence or incom­pe­tence.”

Three years ago, when the Fifth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals reject­ed’s Soffar’s ear­li­er motion for a new tri­al, Judge Harold R. DeMoss wrote in dis­sent: ​“I have laid awake nights ago­niz­ing over the enig­mas, con­tra­dic­tions, and ambi­gu­i­ties which are inher­ent in this record. However, my colleagues…have shut their eyes to the big pic­ture and have per­suad­ed them­selves that piece­meal jus­tice is suf­fi­cient in this case…I am glad I will not be stand­ing in their shoes, if and when Soffar is exe­cut­ed.” Soffar’s cur­rent attor­ney has said that he believes the more recent Fifth Circuit rul­ing will stand. (Dallas Morning News and KHOU News, April 22, 2004) Read the opin­ion Soffar v. Dretke. See Innocence. See also, Representation.

Citation Guide