Execution or political assassination?

What can we learn about the death penalty from the report below? Note the contention of the defendant's son that his father was the victim of a "political assassination." Note also that the trial court sentence of life imprisonment was overruled on appeal as being too light. I also find it interesting that the Prime Minister's adviser not only spoke about how terrified the defendant was as he was led to the gallows, but also opined that the execution was not marred by unseemly problems. Does the Iraqi government always get it right? Does any government always get it right? The whole thing is so macabre that I am left without anything more to say.

SADDAM Hussein's vice-president was hanged yesterday despite protests by human rights groups that the evidence was weak and the sentence unfair. Taha Yassin Ramadan, the highest-ranking person from Saddam's government to be executed after the former president, was fearful as he was led to the gallows, said Bassam Ridha, adviser to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

"He was scared, terrified, very terrified," Mr Ridha said. However, Mr Ridha said the hanging was not plagued by the problems that marred the executions of Saddam and his half-brother, which outraged Iraqis* * * *

Ramadan was convicted in November along with six others, including Saddam, for his role in the 1982 massacre of 148 Shiites in a small town north of Baghdad after an assassination attempt on the Iraqi president.

The trial court that sentenced Saddam to death sentenced Ramadan to life in prison, but an appeals court ruled the punishment was too light. The trial court then sentenced him to death last month. Despite being a senior official in the Saddam regime, Ramadan was a relatively minor figure in the trial. The accusations against him largely centred on his order that orchards and fields in the Dujayl area be bulldozed, and evidence was presented about his participation in meetings with other leaders who were more culpable in the massacres* * * *

"The trial was riddled with flaws and didn't meet international standards," said Sara Dareshori, senior counsel with Human Rights Watch in New York. Ramadan's son, Ahmad, said his father would be buried in the area of the Iraqi city of Tikrit near Saddam's burial place.

"It was not an execution. It was a political assassination," Ramadan's son told al-Jazeera television by telephone from the Yemeni capital, Sanaa.

Skadden, Arps does some good!

I love seeing press releases like this one. All too often they do not get picked up and reported anywhere. Here, they are headlines!

LOS ANGELES, March 15 /PRNewswire/ -- Public Counsel, the largest probono public interest law firm in the world, announced today that it will name its nationally recognized Guardianship & Conservatorship Clinic in honor of the international law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, which made a gift of $200,000 to endow the program. The Clinic will now be known as the Skadden, Arps' Guardianship & Conservatorship Clinic.

Hats off to Skadden, Arps.

More dangerous vilification of Gitmo lawyers

Here is some dangerous rhetoric from a Wall Street Journal commentary regarding legal services provided by Shearman & Sterling to a former Guantanamo detainee:

Shearman & Sterling lawyers aren't hucksters crassly promoting a cheap product; they are sworn officers of the court volunteering to represent alien enemy combatants in a time of war, interjecting themselves in cases that affect how American soldiers on the battlefield do their job. It is one thing to take these cases in order to achieve the proper balance between due process concerns and unprecedented national security issues. It is another to hire PR and marketing consultants to create image makeovers for suspected al Qaeda financiers, foot soldiers, weapons trainers and bomb makers, all of which is financed by millions of dollars from a foreign country enmeshed in the anti-American, anti-Israel elements of Middle East politics.

Please note my emphasis upon the word "suspected" in the excerpt above. Our legal system is just that--a system. How about waiting until a suspect is convicted before vilifying everyone in sight? Maybe the government never gets it wrong, and maybe some citizens have crystal balls which accurately tell them in advance who is guilty and who is not, but I don't think so. There's nothing even remotely wrong with allowing "suspected" enemy combatants to retain whatever lawyers or other professionals they want. This sounds like Cully Stimson all over again, only this time voicing an objection to lawyers and professionals representing paying clients who are wildly unpopular. The day when "suspects" are denied rights to counsel and vigorous rehabilitation of their impugned reputations may be just around the corner.

Help With The "Walter Reed" Problem

There is no excuse for allowing any single one of our fallen heroes to slip through the cracks of bureaucratic stupidity. These young men and women are all volunteers. They deserve at least the A-1 care that each of our elected officials and civil servants get.All of our Congressional Representatives and Senators should quit posturing and authorize immediately the following:

• Include any member of the armed services serving in Iraq and Afghanistan who has been injured or contracted an illness in the line of duty in the Congressional Health Care Program; and
• Provide each such member with a volunteer advocate who is an experienced attorney, trained in healthcare law who can help the member steer through any remaining bureaucratic bullsh**.
• Benjamin Franklin Legal Foundation is now recruiting volunteers for the advocacy program, whether or not Congress acts on the first part of this suggestion.

Please let me know by email or comment if you are willing to help by publicizing this idea or otherwise.

This is disturbing

I'm not entirely sure how to take the sentiment conveyed in this recent post from the widely respected and enormously popular Power Line blog:

I concluded my post just below on the NFL's decision not to allow the U.S. Border Patrol to run a seemingly uncontroversial recruiting ad at the Super Bowl by suggesting a disconnect between corporate American and "real America." Good evidence of that disconnect is found in the saga of former Assistant Secretary of Defense Charles "Cully" Stimson. Most readers will recall that Stimson predicted or warned that elite law firms representing Gitmo detainees would lose business as a result of their pro bono work. But, as Stimson should have expected, corporate America stood behind its elite law firms, and Stimson apologized and soon thereafter resigned.

These days, the mentality manifested by elite corporations is quite similar to, but in some respects slightly more "progressive" (i.e. out-of-touch) than, that of the elite lawyers who represent them.

This sounds like a condemnation not only of "elite law firms" who provide pro bono services to highly unpopular clients (like the Guantanamo detainees), but also of the "elite corporations" which have continued to use the services of these law firms (as in "If you think that elite law firms who offer pro bono services to Guantanamo detainees are 'out of-touch', consider the case of the 'more out-of touch' elite corporations which not only continue to hire these lawyers but also oppose Super Bowl recruiting ads by the U.S Border Patrol.) Maybe there is some other more subtle point being argued, but I sure don't see it. The sentiments expressed by Cully Stimson may indeed be shared by others--fair enough in a free speaking society. But when I see these same sentiments reprised in sheep's clothing by other highly educated lawyers, it disturbs me.

What you see is what you get

The sequel lived up to all expectations. Good thing there was no chanting.

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Two of Saddam Hussein's aides were hanged before dawn on Monday, the Iraqi government said, admitting that the head of his half-brother Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti was also ripped from his body during the execution. On the defensive after international uproar over sectarian taunts during the illicitly filmed hanging of the ousted president two weeks ago, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh insisted there was "no violation of procedure" during the executions of Barzan and former judge Awad Hamed al-Bander. But defense lawyers and politicians from Saddam's once dominant Sunni Arab minority expressed fury at the fate of Barzan, Saddam's once feared intelligence chief, and there was also skepticism and condemnation of Iraq's Shi'ite-dominated government across the mostly Sunni-ruled Arab world.

"The convicts were not subjected to any mistreatment," Dabbagh said describing the beheading by the rope as a rare mishap. "Their rights were not violated. There was no chanting."

The Super Bowl of Executions

We are all given a death sentence the moment we are born. Although the time and manner are normally unknown, death is a certainty. Suicide and execution have this in common: both make known the time and manner of death to the victim. Both require the victim to stare death in the eye with the final moments of life ticking off to conclusion. Saddam Hussein's execution was a smash hit reality TV show watched by hundreds of millions of viewers around the world via the internet. This was the all time great execution-- the Super Bowl, the World Series, the Olympics, the World Cup of executions. It was about as good as it gets for executions, what with a notoriously evil mass murderer getting what he deserves and all. There was even some retributive justice thrown in by hecklers who damned him for eternity. Finally, good triumphed over evil. I really cannot agree with those who deplore the fact that Saddam was not executed in a more dignified way. For whose sake should this have been done? Ours or his? I was particularly struck by a question Bill O'Reilly posed to a supposed expert on his TV show about what Saddam's body language suggested as the rope was being placed around his neck. "He looks nervous," she said. Personally, I will never accept execution as being on the good side of any moral equation. I want to live in a society which values and spares life at every practical opportunity. I detest arguing about the death penalty and hearing comparisons with self defense, war, and protecting oneself and family from evildoers. I know I am going to lose this argument every time as surely as I know Saddam's half brother and the judge will soon swing just like he did, only maybe without the heckling (at least not out loud broadcast worldwide over the internet). Logic and argument get nowhere in this game. The only thing that matters is where you stand when the time comes. Who decides how and when we die? Absent some pretty compelling circumstances (yeah, like war and self defense), I don't want to decide how or when anyone dies. I will leave that to the Almighty whatever. In the meantime, I will continue to work shoulder to shoulder with pro bono lawyers around the country in our inalterable opposition to the death penalty.

Chinese pro bono lawyer gives hope to clients

Here is the timely and compelling story of Chen Bulie, a brave Chinese lawyer in the forefront of pro bono efforts in China:

Watching the lawyer Chen Bulei argue his case, it was easy to forget that he was almost certain to lose. Pacing confidently before a packed courtroom in the northeastern Chinese city of Haicheng earlier this year, he scored rhetorical points so deftly that sympathetic onlookers pumped their fists like fans at a sporting event. Chen's client, a 56-year-old talc miner named Zhao Jitian, was on trial for "assembling a mob to disrupt social order"—a politically charged criminal offense often invoked to silence Chinese citizens who band together to air grievances against their employers or the government. Police in Haicheng had arrested Zhao five months earlier after he took part in a demonstration with about 100 other laid-off employees of the Aihai Talc Company to demand benefits they claim the firm had illegally withheld for nearly eight years. It is exceedingly rare for defendants charged with political crimes in China to escape conviction. But with Chen in his corner, brandishing a pocket-sized copy of China's criminal code as he punched hole after hole in the prosecution's charges, it seemed Zhao just might walk out of the courtroom a free man.

We are so fortunate to have our civil liberties, including the right to assemble, that we often take them for granted. Maybe through the pro bono service of lawyers like Chen Bulie we can be reminded of the sacred value of liberty and our own civil rights. Thank a pro bono lawyer if you see one today.

An absolutely amazing bar association: Broome County, NY

I remember reading about the floods, but I don't remember reading anything about these superhero lawyers. This story is definitely worth reading. Hats off to the Broome County Bar Association. Their selfless pro bono service is inspirational.

Sindy Garey's telephone at the Broome County Bar Association keeps ringing -- five months after floodwaters wrecked local homes and businesses and left people's lives in financial tangles that call for a lawyer's advice.

Flood victims continue to seek free legal advice offered by Broome's bar, although the calls have slowed to about eight to 10 a week on issues ranging from bankruptcy to flood insurance to FEMA appeals, said Garey, executive director of the bar. That's down from a peak of about 40 calls a day for five or six weeks after floodwaters hit June 27.

Garey does legal triage, lining up flood victims with attorneys who are knowledgeable about their particular legal plights. She has a panel of about 70 volunteer attorneys to choose from, all members of Broome's bar, who've made time in their own legal careers to help people whose lives have been turned upside down by floodwaters. In the aftermath of June's flooding, the Broome bar offered victims a 30-minute free legal consultation. The volunteer lawyers, said Kathryn Grant Madigan, president-elect of New York's 70,000-member bar association, went above and beyond the call of pro bono work. New York's bar is the nation's largest voluntary association of lawyers.

Madigan said the Federal Emergency Management Agency was so impressed by how it all worked, it will use New York as a template for other states facing a natural disaster to help them set up systems to provide legal help for victims. "We have an absolutely amazing bar association," said Madigan, a Vestal attorney who coordinated the state and local effort. "They stepped up with no hesitation at all."

The pro bono champion of Canada

is McCarthy Tetrault:

TORONTO, Nov. 16 /CNW/ - McCarthy Tétrault is proud to announce that it garnered the Canadian National Pro Bono Law Firm Award this evening at the first-ever National Pro Bono Conference, being held at the Metropolitan Hotelin Toronto on November 16 and 17, 2006. "While this recognition of our efforts is certainly an honour, we view pro bono work as a responsibility that our firm and the entire legal industry must continue to shoulder," said W. Iain Scott, McCarthy Tétrault Chair and CEO. "We are proud of the $1.2 million in pro bono services that 192 McCarthyTétrault lawyers contributed so far this year to communities across Canada in 2006, but there is still much work to be done. It is our hope that this award serves as an instrument of inspiration and change, beginning with the formation of Pro Bono Law organizations all across Canada."

Well said, Mr. Scott. The entire press release is worth reading. Congratulations to all concerned!

A Good Firm Model For Pro Bono

...has been established at Atlanta's Kilpatrick & Stockton by making the Pro Bono Practice a full time Partner's responsibility. Debbie Segal has made that a successful strategy. As noted in the Fulton County Daily Report:

Since Segal joined Kilpatrick, the firm’s annual pro bono hours have almost tripled, from a total of 7,900 hours in 2000 to 27,500 hours last year, she said. Last year’s hours would be worth $8.3 million if charged at billable rates and amounted to 3.3 percent of the firm’s revenue. Eighty-two percent of Kilpatrick’s lawyers worked pro bono at least 20 hours, contributing to the firm’s No. 4 participation ranking and No. 17 overall spot last year in American Lawyer’s annual pro bono survey of the nation’s 200 largest law firms.

Pretty impressive if you ask us!!!!!

Death penalty double clutch

Here's food for thought concerning when the death penalty is appropriate. What exactly justifies seeking imposition of the death penalty? Whatever standards there might be, are they consistently applied?

No death penalty sought in double slaying

By CHRIS BRISTOL YAKIMA HERALD-REPUBLIC

Yakima County Prosecutor Ron Zirkle announced Friday he won't seek the death penalty in the execution-style slaying of a reputed drug dealer and his 3-year-old daughter.

Given pretrial costs of nearly $1.25 million, Zirkle's decision not to seek the death penalty against Junior Sanchez is sure to be seen as controversial. He earlier made the same decision with regard to Sanchez's co-defendant, Mario "Gato" Mendez. The prosecutor said ethics guidelines prevent him from discussing his rationale until the case goes to trial, and he predicted his decision will become more obvious at that stage.

He did say, however, that his decision was not based on any potential concerns prosecutors might have about the strength of the case. Nonetheless, Zirkle acknowledged the case has become controversial because of the enormous costs involved, which might have been avoided with a quicker decision.

"For months I've been trying to think of ways I could end this sooner because of the money that's being spent on this case, but I wasn't able to conclude the process sooner," he said. "These decisions are too important to be made quickly."

Sanchez, 24, and Mendez, 26, both face charges of aggravated first-degree murder in the February 2005 shooting deaths of 21-year-old Ricky Causor and his 3-year-old daughter, Mya. Causor's girlfriend, Michelle Kublic, was wounded in the attack. She was shot four times while shielding the couple's other daughter, 2-year-old Angelica, from the gunfire.

Fiddling while Darfur burns

Enough already! The quote in The Sudan Tribune below from el-Bashir about his promise to God not to let Darfurian suffering be a pretext for foreign intervention is particularly galling. Note to world: DO SOMETHING!

US’s Rice confers with UN’s Annan as Darfur deteriorates

Thursday 26 October 2006 02:30.

Oct 25, 2006 (WASHINGTON) — The Bush administration declared Wednesday the war-torn Darfur region of Sudan is in a dangerous downward spiral. There was no indication, however, that President Omar el-Bashir was relenting in his refusal to accept a U.N. peacekeeping force despite reassurances the peacekeepers would not go after government leaders.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice conferred by telephone with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Afterward, Rice’s spokesman, Sean McCormack, said, "We are very concerned about the situation there. It is not getting any better. We are concerned that it could well be getting worse."

Rice and Annan discussed the forced expulsion of Jan Pronk, Annan’s top aide in Sudan, and the importance of having the post filled quickly, either with Pronk or another U.N. diplomat, McCormack said. Rice called the ouster "extremely unfortunate," McCormack said. Rice and Stephen Hadley, the U.S. national security adviser, met at the White House late Tuesday with Andrew Natsios, Rice’s envoy to Sudan, who also met in Cairo, Egypt, with Arab League diplomats. Even while el-Bashir refuses to admit a U.N. peacekeeping force to take over from undermanned African Union peacekeepers, the United States is soliciting other countries for support in Darfur, particularly Sudan’s neighbors and Arab governments.

But el-Bashir is adamantly against what he calls "foreign intervention." "We have promised before God not to let Darfurians’ suffering be a pretext for foreign intervention or a subject for hostile media," el-Bashir was quoted as saying Tuesday. The Sudanese leader and other top officials have said they are concerned that the U.N. force could be used to track down and arrest leaders of the Sudanese government, McCormack said. "We have said that this is not the mandate of this U.N., force," he said, and the United States has asked Arab governments to reassure them on that score."We ask them to do that in every way that they possibly can," McCormack said.

The conflict in Darfur between government-backed Arab militia and the non-Arab population has killed about 200,000 people in three years and displaced some 2.5 million people.

Yes, there will be a capital court-martial!

The suspense is over. The Army will seek the death penalty against two soldiers for the notorious rape-murder of a young Iraqi girl and her family. Keep in mind that a court-martial proceeds under Article II of the Constitution, not Article III. I will continue to watch this as it proceeds. The implications seem quite large to me on a number of levels. Aside from legalistic considerations, it will be interesting to learn what kinds of mitigation arguments are made if the defendants are found guilty and face the death penalty. Combat stress? Exactly what is combat stress anyway? To be continued.

8 GIs to be tried over killings

The Associated Press WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2006 EVANSVILLE, Indiana

Eight soldiers from the 101st Division of the U.S. Army will be court-martialed on charges of murdering Iraqi civilians, the military ordered Wednesday. Two of them face the death penalty for allegedly raping an Iraqi girl and killing her and her family.

The military authorities said they would seek the death penalty against Sergeant Paul Cortez and Private First Class Jesse Spielman in connection with the rape and murder in March of Abeer Qassim Hamzeh, 14, at her family's home in Mahmudiya, south of Baghdad. Specialist James Barker and Private First Class Bryan Howard are also accused in the rape and murders but death sentences will not be sought against them, the military said in a statement.

Four other soldiers face a separate court martial for the alleged murders of three men near Samarra. The rape-slaying case set off international outrage and led to a claim by a group linked to Al Qaeda that it had killed three soldiers of the 101st Division in retaliation. The case also increased demands for changes in an agreement that exempts U.S. soldiers from prosecution in Iraqi courts.

Spielman's attorneys expressed shock that their client faced the death penalty, citing evidence from a hearing in August that indicated he was not in the house when the rape and murders occurred. "Even according to the government's evidence that they're putting forth, Jesse isn't even a principal in murder and rape," said Craig Carlson, Spielman's attorney. "It surprises me that they're treating him like they're treating Green."

Former Private Steven Green, who was discharged for a personality disorder and arrested in North Carolina, will be tried in a U.S. court in Kentucky. In affidavits, Green was described as a central figure in the rape and murders. He has pleaded not guilty to one count of rape and four counts of murder.

Ineffective assistance? Not this time!

Well, you can't blame this prominent defense lawyer for trying. Believe me, this is a strategy which has occurred to virtually every trial defense counsel at one time or another. It is ironic that trial defense lawyers are vilified to a "fare thee well" by prosecutors (and often criminal court judges) while the trial is occurring, but they all become Clarence Darrows once the guilty verdict is read.

Lawyer claim that he botched case rejected By Michael Higgins, Tribune staff reporter. Published October 24, 2006

Despite a prominent defense attorney's insistence that he botched a murder trial in 1981, a state appellate court on Monday upheld the conviction in the case and agreed with the trial judge, who called the attorney's performance stellar. Randolph Stone, who directs the University of Chicago Law School's Mandel Legal Aid Clinic, blamed himself for failing to prove that his client was mentally ill and for not cross-examining two key witnesses at sentencing.

Stone took the blame in an affidavit he wrote for the state appellate defender's office, which sought to overturn the conviction of James Ford, 52, based on ineffective counsel. But the 1st District Appellate Court in Chicago, ruling on what it called an unexpected argument, refused to grant Ford a new trial.

"The judge said Stone turned in `a stellar performance' [and] was `on his game,'" Judge Robert Cahill wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel. "Our review of the record leads us to concur with the trial judge. [Stone] has been too hard on himself." Stone, who also has served as the public defender for Cook County, said Monday that he was disappointed in the result.

Read the whole story here.

Ineffective assistance as an effective defense strategy?

I have often wondered why trial defense counsel aren't more receptive to "ineffective assistance of counsel" based appeals. Sure, you hate to admit making a mistake, and no one likes criticism, but then again, it's neither your life nor your liberty which is at stake. Here's one defense counsel who embraces the idea.

WEST PALM BEACH -- Nathaniel Brazill, serving a 28-year prison sentence for fatally shooting a Lake Worth Middle School teacher in 2000, will get a new hearing at which he will claim his trial attorney did not effectively represent him, an appeals court ruled Wednesday. *****

Brazill, who filed the motion on his own behalf, has an unlikely advocate in his bid to get a new trial."I'm glad to see he got a new hearing and I hope he does get some relief," said Robert Udell, Brazill's trial attorney. "I'd love to see him get a new trial.

"Ineffective assistance of counsel appeals - as they are commonly known - are standard post-conviction motions brought by inmates. Udell said he understands this and that any lawyer who takes such an appeal personally is "a weenie."

"I've been doing this for 30 years and I've never understood lawyers who get up on their high horse when clients file (ineffective assistance of counsel) motions," Udell said. "If my client is in jail for anything I did or didn't do, I'll be the first one to say they deserve relief from the courts."

Of course, embedding a trial with ineffective assistance should never be a trial strategy, should it? Here's the whole story.

Go George! Clooney confronts the U.N. on Darfur

This story really impresses me. George Clooney is actually doing something about the Darfur emergency. His strong words to the U.N. should be yet another wake up call to the world.

Inside, Clooney told the U.N.'s most powerful body that it must send replacements for the African Union's 7,000 peacekeepers in Darfur when its mandate expires at the end of the month. If it did not, aid workers would have to leave and the 2.5 million displaced people who depend on them would die.

"After Sept. 30 you won't need the U.N. You will simply need men with shovels and bleached white linen and headstones," the 45-year-old actor warned. The Sudanese government has refused to approve the replacement of African Union peacekeepers by a U.N. force, saying it would violate the country's sovereignty.

More than 200,000 people have been killed and over 2 million have fled their homes since 2003 when ethnic African tribes revolted against the Arab-led Khartoum government. A May peace agreement signed by the government and one of the major rebel groups was supposed to help end the conflict in Darfur. Instead, it has sparked months of fighting among rival rebel factions that has added to the toll of the dead and displaced.

"The United States has called it genocide," Clooney told council members. "For you it's called ethnic cleansing. But make no mistake _ it is the first genocide of the 21st century. And if it continues unchecked it will not be the last."

In stark words he told the U.N. diplomats: "In many ways it is unfair, but it is nonetheless true that this genocide will be on your watch. How you deal with it will be your legacy, your Rwanda, your Cambodia, your Auschwitz." "We were brought up to believe that the U.N. was formed to ensure that the Holocaust could never happen again. We believe in you so strongly. We need you so badly. If not the U.N., then who?" Clooney asked.

Clooney is telling it like it is. In this post 9/11/2001 world, we have become preoccupied with our own security. The poor people of Darfur have not made it on to our radar screen in any meaningful way. How can this happen??? Again I ask, where are our real leaders? I'm ready to vote for George Clooney.

Habeas corpus emergency at Guantanamo

Here are two emergency communications I just received from two of my partners who represent 10 Guantanamo detainees:

Congress is considering legislation over the next several days that will effectively overturn the two most recent Supreme Court decisions establishing the right of Guantanamo detainees to access to the courts and retroactively deny detainees at Guantanamo the right to pursue federal habeas corpus petitions or any other meaningful form of judicial review. Unless they are charged with a crime, these detainees will fall into a black hole in the law where they can be detained indefinitely. Putting politics aside, this is inconsistent with basic notions of due process of law and respect for the rule of law. ---David J. Bradford

I am at GTMO and I want to thank all of you for your efforts. As we state in our letter to the Senators, stripping the District Court of jurisdiction over habeas claims would be disastrous for hundreds of men. The proposed legislation would lead to, in my view, the perverse result that (1) the really "bad guys" would be charged before the military tribunals, and they'd get lawyers and have relatively fair hearings (all of which I support) and (2) the lesser involved (or, indeed, innocent) men would get no charges, no hearings and no habeas review while their detention extends indefinitely. Is this America?? ---Jeffrey D. Colman

They are asking everyone who cares about this important issue to write to their Senators immediately. Please help!

All gave some. Some gave all.

On behalf of everyone who has ever given even an hour of time pro bono publico, I salute the memory of the heroic public servants who died five years ago on September 11, 2001. If there were a pro bono Hall of Fame, it would stand at Ground Zero with tributes to each of these men and women at the entrance. The story below is but one of many.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Tour guide Ann Van Hine is rewarded with tears, not tips, and frequently reduces visitors to an awed silence when she tells them how her husband, a firefighter, died at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

"Sometimes I feel bad because I look at people's faces as I'm telling my story and it's like I've just blown them away," Van Hine said after leading 25 tourists from as far afield as Italy and Australia on a tour around the perimeter of the gaping hole known as Ground Zero. She says younger visitors often chat freely with her before the tour, but afterwards, "They don't know what to say to me."

As she is about to climb a steep flight of stairs to a walkway over the highway west of the site, Van Hine asks visitors to imagine climbing stairs loaded up with firefighting equipment. "The firefighters got up to about the 70th floor, so it would have been like doing what we're doing 35 times."

She and her husband, Richard Bruce Van Hine, had two daughters aged 14 and 17 at the time of the attacks that killed 2,992 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. "Ten days after, I asked my girls where they thought Daddy was and they said they thought Daddy was in heaven," she said, adding that she visited Ground Zero on September 28, 2001.

If you see a firefighter, police officer, or emergency worker this Monday, September 11, take the time to thank them for what they are doing. If you know any men or women in uniform or any members of their families, you might also thank them in any way you deem best. We owe them big time.

Vox clamantis in Darfur: Can anyone hear it?

While it's business as usual at the United Nations (what with Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel and all), the poor people of Darfur are about to get another genocidal thrashing at the hands of murderous thugs posing as human beings. When will this horrible situation be acted upon by the decent people of the world? How can our leaders ignore this any longer. We all know the answer, don't we? So, what are we going to do about it?

Shaky Darfur Peace at Risk as New Fighting Looms By LYDIA POLGREEN Published: August 31, 2006 EL FASHER, Sudan, Aug. 30 So far, negotiations over a proposed United Nations force to shore up the shaky peace in Darfur have limped along with no sign of compromise. The opposing sides in the conflict now seem headed toward a large-scale military confrontation, bringing Darfur to the edge of a new abyss — perhaps the deepest it has faced.

“Unfortunately, things seem to be headed in that direction,” said Gen. Collins Ihekire, commander of the beleaguered 7,000-member African Union force that is enforcing a fragile peace agreement between the government and one rebel group. Nearly four months after signing the agreement, the government is preparing a fresh assault against the rebel groups that refused to sign. Years of conflict have already killed hundreds of thousands of people here and sent 2.5 million fleeing their homes. But that may be a prelude of the death likely to come from further fighting, hunger and disease. In the past few months, killings of aid workers and hijackings of their vehicles, mostly by rebel groups, have forced aid groups to curtail programs to feed, clothe and shelter hundreds of thousands of people.

Why can't an accused plead guilty to capital murder?

There has to be something wrong if a defendant like this who is accused of capital murder cannot plead guilty. In most cases where the evidence of guilt is overwhelming, it does little to help a defendant avoid the death penalty at the sentencing phase if he cannot show at least the beginnings of remorse by acknowledging his culpability, especially where a jury will shortly thereafter determine whether there are sufficient mitigating circumstances precluding eligibility for death. The idea that he will be better off hoping for error as he requires the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt seems highly speculative and very shaky to me. It is far more probable that the presentation of graphic, emotionally devastating evidence of guilt to a jury who believes the defendant is denying obvious guilt will create a hanging mood before the sentencing phase begins. Although the rest of this story offers some possible explanations, my sympathies extend to the defendant who tried to enter an immediate plea of guilty. There is nothing stopping a subsequent psychological examination regarding mental capacity, etc. Guilty pleas can be withdrawn if improvidently entered.

Haq tries to enter guilty plea By Natalie Singer Seattle Times staff reporter

Naveed Afzal Haq, accused in the Jewish Federation shootings, confers with his attorney C. Wesley Richards on Thursday. The man accused of killing one woman and wounding five others at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle surprised everyone in the courtroom, including his own attorney, when he attempted to plead guilty Thursday to nine felonies, including a charge that could result in the death penalty.

But after objections from Naveed Afzal Haq's attorney, who said he was concerned about Haq's mental competency, the judge ordered the arraignment to be continued until Tuesday, and no pleas were entered. After the charges against him were read aloud in King County Superior Court on Thursday morning, Haq turned and whispered into the ear of defense attorney C. Wesley Richards."My client has indicated he would like to enter guilty pleas," Richards told Judge Michael Trickey. "I have concerns about his reasoning."

Pro bono legal services under attack in Iran

This report from Amnesty International is deeply disturbing.

Amnesty International is alarmed at the continuing erosion in the human rights situation in Iran, highlighted by the announcement that the Centre for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR, in Persian, Kanoon-e Modafean Hogooge Bashar), co-founded by Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Shirin Ebadi, has been banned.

The banning of the CDHR, and threats of arrest against its members should they continue their work, strikes at the heart of the struggle for human rights in Iran. The targeting of the CDHR is symbolic of the climate of intimidation and harassment endured by Iran’s community of human rights defenders in the course of their work.

On 3 August, the Ministry of Interior announced that the CDHR had been banned. A statement by the Secretariat of the Committee for Article 10 of the Law on Party and Organization Activities said “…any activity under the name of Kanoon-e Modafean Hogooge Bashar is illegal and violators will be prosecuted accordingly”.

The CDHR was established in 2002, by Shirin Ebadi. Its members include some of Iran’s leading human rights defenders and lawyers. The CDHR has made an inestimable contribution to the development of a culture of human rights in Iran, and the efforts of other human rights defenders in Iran have been bolstered its work.

The CDHR has three stated roles, reporting violations of human rights in Iran; providing pro-bono legal representation to political prisoners; and support to the families of political prisoners. Its members have pursued high profile cases of impunity, and defended high profile victims of human rights violations. Lawyers for the CDHR represented the family of Zahra Kazemi, the Iranian-Canadian journalist who died in Evin prison in June 2003, and prisoner of conscience Akbar Ganji.

In the midst of all the media confusion about what is going on in the Mideast, this sure seems to me like a very troubling objective development. Think what you want about Amnesty International, but they occasionally are spot on the heart of the matter.

Combat stress defense?

Here is more on the rape/murder case being presented to the U.S. military court (Article 32 investigation) in Baghdad. It looks like "combat stress" may be offered as a defense of some kind. Again, death penalty trial counsel are often asked to defend what many would think is "the indefensible."

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A U.S. military court deciding whether four soldiers should be court-martialled for rape and murder heard on Tuesday how troops were "driven nuts" by combat stress and got high on Iraqi cough syrup. Private First Class Justic Cross described how conditions "pretty much crushed the platoon", which lived in constant fear of being killed in the Mahmudiya area south of Baghdad where the rape and murders took place in March. "It drives you nuts. You feel like every step you might get blown up. You just hit a point where you're like, 'If I die today, I die'. You're just walking a death walk," he said.

On Monday, the court at Camp Liberty heard graphic testimony of how three of the soldiers took turns raping a 14-year-old Iraqi girl before murdering her and her family. The case has outraged Iraqis and led Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to call for a review of foreign troops' immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law. Mahmudiya is part of what Iraqis call the "Triangle of Death" for its frequent attacks and kidnappings by insurgents and al Qaeda militants.

Private First Class Jesse Spielman, 21, Specialist James Barker, 23, Sergeant Paul Cortez, 23 and Private First Class Bryan Howard, 19, face charges of rape and murder among others. If court-martialled after the Article 32 hearing -- the military's equivalent of a U.S. grand jury -- and found guilty, they could face the death penalty. The hearing began on Sunday and is expected to last several days.

Will there be a capital court martial?

I will be keeping my eye on this case as it progresses. It will almost certainly raise important questions about the death penalty. For those who practice in this area, the brutality of the alleged crimes is not unprecedented. In the U.S., charges like these are almost always tried as capital offenses. Can there be a "fair trial" under these circumstances? Is there a difference between Article 2 and Article 3 courts when it comes to the death penalty?

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - An Iraqi army medic described a scene of horror to a U.S. military hearing on Sunday that will decide if four U.S. soldiers are to be court-martialled for the murder and rape of an Iraqi girl and the killing of her family.

The medic, who was not named, said that when he entered the house in Mahmudiya in March, he found 14-year-old Abeer Qasim Hamza al-Janabi naked with her legs spread and burnt from the waist up, with a single bullet wound beneath her left eye. He also told the hearings he had found her six-year-old sister in an adjacent room with the back of her head blown out, and the bodies of both parents riddled with bullets.

The Mahmudiya case, the fifth involving serious crimes being investigated by the U.S. military in Iraq, has outraged Iraqis and led Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to call for a review of foreign troops' immunity from Iraqi prosecution. The court heard testimony from three Iraqi witnesses on Sunday, the first day of proceedings. But the media covering the event were only allowed to record the comments of the medic, who said he was ill for weeks after witnessing the crime scene.

Military prosecutors are expected to lay out their case against Private First Class Jesse Spielman, Specialist James Barker, Sergeant Paul Cortez and Private First Class Bryan Howard, who face charges of rape and murder among others. If court-martialled and found guilty, they could face the death penalty.

Heroes of Guantanamo, we salute you!

I know there are many to laud for their pro bono work on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, but I think Perkins, Coie and Professor Neal Katyal of Georgetown deserve the highest praise of all. What's more, the personal courage of Navy JAG lawyer LCDR Charles Swift should not be underestimated. I served proudly in the Navy JAG corps myself as a defense lawyer many years ago, and I can assure you that this was not a career enhancing experience for Mr. Swift. Here is a press release identifying these heroic lawyers and paralegals. Turn up the cyber applause meters now!

WASHINGTON, D.C. (June 30, 2006) – LAWFUEL - Press Release Service - Perkins Coie attorneys were part of a defense team that received a favorable ruling in a landmark case that challenged the scope of presidential authority. In a historic decision, the Supreme Court ruled (5-3) that military tribunals established by the Executive Office to try enemy combatants and detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are not authorized by Congress and violate both domestic and international laws, including the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions.

The case, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, challenged the military commission process on behalf of Salim Hamdan, who has been detained since November 2001. Mr. Hamdan was apprehended in Afghanistan and transported to an American prison in Guantanamo Bay.

Working with the prisoner's assigned military defense counsel, Lt. Commander Charles Swift of the U.S. Navy, and Georgetown law professor Neal Katyal, the Perkins Coie pro bono team argued that the Bush Administration overstepped its authority when it set up military commissions to try terrorist suspects such as Hamdan, and that the process utilized by the Administration violated international law and did not conform to the basic rights afforded to those who are accused under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In addition, the Court concluded that a statute enacted by Congress in late 2005 did not strip it of jurisdiction to hear the case.

Perkins Coie lawyers, paralegals and staff have spent thousands of pro bono hours on the case since it was first filed in April 2004. “Perkins Coie undertook this case because the legal issues it presents are important and profound, and they go right to the very foundation of our constitutional system of justice and the rule of law,” explained Harry Schneider, a senior partner on the pro bono team. “The case raised critical questions about the scope of presidential authority, whether this president or any president can deny prisoners basic due process rights in the name of waging war, and it tested in the most important way our federal courts' very ability and jurisdiction to consider such disputes. The Court’s decision today is a landmark ruling that reaffirms the fundamental principles of our system of justice. We are honored to have been given the opportunity to work on this important case.”

Judge Robert Lasnik of the Western District of Washington, where the case was originally filed, remarked in open court that Perkins Coie’s pro bono participation was “the highest calling of the profession,” and an example of the “greatest tradition of the bar and the country.”

The greatest pro bono victory ever

Here is the opinion of the Supreme Court in what may be the greatest pro bono victory in modern times, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, et al. Our country has never been stronger, and our governmental institutions have never shined brighter. This makes me proud to be a lawyer.

More Darfur bluster

If you ever feel like complaining about posturing politicians in the U.S., imagine the plight of the citizens of the Darfur region of Sudan. Recolonization? Ridiculous--but maybe not a bad idea if this keeps up much longer.

Khartoum - Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir has voiced strong opposition to the deployment of Western troops in war-torn Darfur, vowing his country would not be "recolonised"."I swear that there will not be any international military intervention in Darfur as long as I am in power," Beshir said late on Monday."Sudan, which was the first country south of the Sahara to gain independence, cannot now be the first country to be recolonised," he said.The UN wants to replace an embattled and under-equipped contingent of African troops in the western region of Darfur with its own peacekeepers in an attempt to shore up a fragile peace deal. - Sapa-AFP

I can't wait to see how the U.N. responds to this. Of course, the U.S. action in Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with the latest rumblings from a nuclear aspiring Iran, can only make the situation more difficult. How can the rest of the world ever muster the resolve to take action in Darfur? Is the situation as hopeless as it seems? Where is real leadership when you need it!

Zarqawi and the death penalty

The death of the villainous Abu Musab al-Zarqawi forces me to come to grips with what at first might seem to be diametrically conflicting personal beliefs. I am inalterably opposed to the death penalty. Yet, I welcomed the news of Zarqawi's death. I wanted it to happen, and I am glad it did. Why don't I feel the same way about the men and women sitting on death row today? I don't, and here's why. Whatever you might think about the Iraq war, there seems to me to be little doubt that the American military has been heavily engaged in an armed struggle with enemies who would, if they could, fundamentally change our way of life. I believe there is a very real protective perimeter around our society, and we have our armed forces to thank for maintaining it. The things we enjoy most--the arts, sports, cultural endeavors, careers, family stuff, etc.--are made possible only because that perimeter has been steadfastly maintained by the sacrifices of generations of soldiers, sailors, aviators, and Marines. Life inside the perimeter is good. Here, we live according to the rule of law. Life outside the perimeter is savage. There, the rule of law gives way to the brutality of war. Efforts to establish and enforce a "law of war" have never really succeeded. Enter Zarqawi. Videotaped beheadings, suicide bombings, indiscriminate killings of civilians, mass executions, and other similar purposeful tactics cannot possibly exist or be tolerated inside or outside our perimeter. The news stories today are filled with speculation about whether Zarqawi survived the initial bombing and was subsequently "shot" by American troops. The fact that this kind of questioning is seriously considered is stark evidence of how highly valued the rule of law is inside the perimeter. Sometimes we even lose track of where the perimeter ends. Exit Zarqawi, and good riddance. There is certainly much room inside the perimeter for differences of opinion about the death penalty. I have mine, and it is based primarily on my own ideal notion of "civilization." There is something about the methodical, step by step, phases and stages procedures leading up to an execution which is just too "premeditated" for me. Perhaps I can justifiably be accused of silly idealism, but I prefer a society which deliberately spares life under all circumstances. Like all other citizens, however, I vote only once, and I commit myself to abide by the rule of law as it is enacted by our legislatures, enforced by our executives, and interpreted by our courts. In the meantime, I will continue to work pro bono on capital cases, and I applaud the countless other lawyers "inside our perimeter" who are doing the same thing on a daily basis.

Making a difference

This Philadelphia columnist has come to the conclusion which motivates many a pro bono capital defense lawyer:

If you're on the fence about capital punishment, as I have been - vacillating between horror at the growing number of death-row inmates who turn out to be innocent, and rage at the brutal killers responsible for the daily carnage in our streets - this case may settle the issue for you. It did for me.

This case involves the work of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius partners Michael Banks and J. Gordon Cooney, Jr. When they first started representing convicted murderer John Thompson, they weren't thinkng about exonerating an innocent man:

What's deeply chilling about the Thompson case is that there was nothing at first glance to suggest he was innocent - nothing to make it a moral cause celebre. "There were no red flags," Banks said at a Philadelphia Bar Association presentation about the case last week. Thompson was exonerated only because Banks and Cooney, partners at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, wanted to do a pro-bono capital case to ensure that a death-row inmate had received a fair trial.

This story is now a movie starring Matt Damon and Ben Affleck. My guess is that John Thompson would cast Messrs. Banks and Cooney in the starring roles. These guys really made a difference.

DLA Piper takes the pledge big time

This remarkable commitment to pro bono service deserves the highest praise.

DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary's pro bono arm has picked three international projects and announced how many hours its lawyers will commit to pro bono work this year. New Perimeter, the firm's not-for-profit affiliate, which coordinates its overseas pro bono activities, has committed more than 13,000 lawyer hours, with an estimated value of more than $6m (£3.19m), for 2006. The three projects that will benefit from the firm's input this year are the South Africa Litigation Centre, the Global Foodbanking Network and the CHF International Micro Financing Project.

News like this more often than not goes completely unnoticed. Indeed, there are countless numbers of lawyers doing millions of hours of annual pro bono service nationally and world wide without any notice at all. It makes me very proud of my profession. Nice going, DLA Piper!