Christopher Scott Emmett could face execution in Virginia before the end of the year despite the fact that his legal representation fell short of decades-old American Bar Association standards, according to an investigation by McClatchy Newspapers reporter Stephen Henderson. Emmett was sentenced to death in 2001, and his story was among the 73 cases reviewed recently in the McClatchy series. During the sentencing phase of his trial, Emmett’s public defender, Lawrence D. Gott, failed to track down or present all of the mitigating evidence that could have spared his client’s life. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that failing to investigate a client’s background or follow up on clues to serious childhood troubles is a critical error in death penalty cases. According to Matthew Engle, the attorney handling Emmett’s appeals, unless the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes in the case, Gott’s errors could cost Emmett his life.
“The more we look into what was done here, the more egregious it seems, honestly. This was a pretty easy case to investigate; they just didn’t do it,” Engel stated. According to Engel, Gott knew that Emmett’s siblings were available to testify about his horrific childhood and that school records and other documents could prove that conditions in Emmett’s childhood home were dire. Gott also had mental health records showing that his client’s childhood was spent in a filthy, abusive, and chaotic home headed by a mother who was prone to abandoning her children physically and emotionally. In fact, her failure to care for her children led to one incident in which Emmett, as an infant, fell down a flight of stairs while unsupervised. “It was really just a matter of following up on obvious leads. You’re not even talking about a lot of records, and it’s right there,” Engel stated. Instead of using what information he had about his client’s troubled childhood and mental health issues during the trial’s sentencing phase, Gott chose not to present this information to the jury. Instead, Gott argued that his client deserved mercy and would not pose a future danger to society.
Virginia courts have noted that Gott’s investigation was not adequate, but still denied Emmett’s appeals in rulings that note the investigation was incomplete because Emmett and his family failed to present all the evidence to his attorney. The Virginia Supreme Court even incorrectly credited Gott with having interviewed all the witnesses Emmett had suggested. Gott himself has never claimed as much. In federal court, in a sharply-worded dissent, Judge Robert L. Gregory of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said that Emmett’s case was a classic example of ineffective lawyering according to Supreme Court standards.
Virginia typically schedules an execution after the appeals court denies a rehearing and is one of only a few states that sets a date before the U.S. Supreme Court has issued its final ruling. Given past practices, Emmett’s execution date could come by the end of May unless the U.S. Supreme Court decides to intervene. “We’re getting down to the end, for sure. You just hope someone will step in,” Engle said.
(McClatchy Newspapers, February 6, 2007). Read Stephen Henderson’s news series “No Defense: Shortcut to Death Row.” See also, Representation.
“The more we look into what was done here, the more egregious it seems, honestly. This was a pretty easy case to investigate; they just didn’t do it,” Engel stated. According to Engel, Gott knew that Emmett’s siblings were available to testify about his horrific childhood and that school records and other documents could prove that conditions in Emmett’s childhood home were dire. Gott also had mental health records showing that his client’s childhood was spent in a filthy, abusive, and chaotic home headed by a mother who was prone to abandoning her children physically and emotionally. In fact, her failure to care for her children led to one incident in which Emmett, as an infant, fell down a flight of stairs while unsupervised. “It was really just a matter of following up on obvious leads. You’re not even talking about a lot of records, and it’s right there,” Engel stated. Instead of using what information he had about his client’s troubled childhood and mental health issues during the trial’s sentencing phase, Gott chose not to present this information to the jury. Instead, Gott argued that his client deserved mercy and would not pose a future danger to society.
Virginia courts have noted that Gott’s investigation was not adequate, but still denied Emmett’s appeals in rulings that note the investigation was incomplete because Emmett and his family failed to present all the evidence to his attorney. The Virginia Supreme Court even incorrectly credited Gott with having interviewed all the witnesses Emmett had suggested. Gott himself has never claimed as much. In federal court, in a sharply-worded dissent, Judge Robert L. Gregory of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said that Emmett’s case was a classic example of ineffective lawyering according to Supreme Court standards.
Virginia typically schedules an execution after the appeals court denies a rehearing and is one of only a few states that sets a date before the U.S. Supreme Court has issued its final ruling. Given past practices, Emmett’s execution date could come by the end of May unless the U.S. Supreme Court decides to intervene. “We’re getting down to the end, for sure. You just hope someone will step in,” Engle said.
(McClatchy Newspapers, February 6, 2007). Read Stephen Henderson’s news series “No Defense: Shortcut to Death Row.” See also, Representation.
Citation Guide
Representation
Dec 27, 2022
