REPRESENTATION: Why Poor People in Texas End Up on Death Row and Face Execution

An in-depth piece in the Huffington Post exam­ines Harris County’s (Texas) sys­tem for pro­vid­ing rep­re­sen­ta­tion to those fac­ing the death penal­ty who can­not afford their own attor­ney. The process is explored through the sto­ry of Obel Cruz-Garcia, a pris­on­er on Texas’ death row.

The author described his case: ​“Like most peo­ple who end up on death row, Cruz-Garcia could not afford to hire a lawyer for the resource-inten­sive process of a cap­i­tal tri­al, and Harris County, Texas, doesn’t offer pub­lic defend­ers in death penal­ty cas­es. Instead, he was appoint­ed a pri­vate defense lawyer named R.P. ​‘Skip’ Cornelius, who made a liv­ing billing the coun­ty to rep­re­sent more than 100 indi­gent clients a year. Cornelius was paid a flat fee to rep­re­sent Cruz-Garcia, regard­less of how much time he spent work­ing on the case.”

Drawing on an inves­ti­ga­tion by KHOU-TV, the author report­ed that, ​“Cornelius’ case­load often exceed­ed both the guide­lines for cap­i­tal and non­cap­i­tal cas­es simul­ta­ne­ous­ly. According to KHOU, Cornelius made about $1.9 mil­lion in eight years — an aver­age of $237,500 a year — rep­re­sent­ing peo­ple who were too poor to hire a lawyer.” David Carroll, the for­mer research direc­tor for the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, told KHOU: ​“I’ve nev­er seen an attor­ney capa­ble of han­dling that entire work­load and giv­ing effec­tive rep­re­sen­ta­tion in every single case.”

Indigent cap­i­tal defen­dants in Texas gen­er­al­ly receive appoint­ed coun­sel from a ros­ter of pri­vate attor­neys. The Huffington Post arti­cle voiced the con­cern that judges may appoint attor­neys who donate to their elec­tion cam­paigns at high­er rates than oth­er equal­ly qual­i­fied attor­neys and pri­or­i­tize defense attor­neys who clear cas­es quick­ly and inexpensively.

The arti­cle draws on the expe­ri­ence of Jim Marcus, a clin­i­cal pro­fes­sor at the University of Texas School of Law, para­phras­ing: ​“Judges typ­i­cal­ly like the sys­tem of appoint­ing pri­vate defense lawyers to indi­gent cas­es because it gives them more con­trol over how the case unfolds.” Moreover, ​“When defense lawyers are depen­dent on judges for income from appoint­ments, there is an incen­tive to for­go cost­ly and time-con­sum­ing inves­tiga­tive work and instead keep cas­es mov­ing along quick­ly. This sys­tem works well for mem­bers of the defense bar, who can make hun­dreds of thou­sands of dol­lars a year by tak­ing on soar­ing case­loads. And pros­e­cu­tors, of course, like fac­ing less oppo­si­tion in the court­room.” According to Marcus, ​“Everybody wins — except for the clients.” 

The jury in Obel Cruz-Garcia’s case reached its penal­ty ver­dict after one day of delib­er­a­tions: he was sen­tenced to death.