It is hard to believe that a Court could have concluded that the continuous failure of a convicted murderer's lawyer - that his negligence - to take steps to take out a habeas corpus application was deemed not worthy of being appellable. But that is what the 11th Circuit of the US Court of Appeal held.
The NY Times in its editorial takes up the issue in "If the Lawyer Fails":
"Our legal system is complex and a lot more powerful than any individual. That is why the Constitution guarantees people accused of serious crimes the right to counsel. If a lawyer turns out to be negligent, the system must do all it can to protect the individual’s rights.
The Supreme Court has a chance to reinforce that fundamental protection in the case of Albert Holland. A Florida prisoner, he did everything he could to ensure that his lawyer filed his habeas corpus petition, which would allow the federal courts to review his state-court conviction for first-degree murder and other crimes.
He continually asked about it, and emphasized the importance of meeting the deadlines. The lawyer repeatedly assured Mr. Holland that he would take care of it, and then missed the habeas deadline. Mr. Holland was given a new lawyer, who argued that due to the first lawyer’s extreme negligence, the failure should be excused under “equitable tolling,” which allows for deadlines to be excused in the broader interests of justice.
The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit rejected the argument, ruling that even gross negligence by a lawyer does not provide a basis for equitable tolling. Unless there was “bad faith, dishonesty, divided loyalty, mental impairment,” or something of that magnitude, the court said, the deadline would stand.
It is a shameful ruling. Mr. Holland’s lawyer’s conduct was not merely negligent. It was, as legal ethics professors and practitioners say in a brief, “intolerable, thoroughly unacceptable behavior.” The legal system cannot take away Mr. Holland’s right to challenge his conviction on the basis of inexcusably awful lawyering.
Underlying all of the law is the principle of “equity,” meaning rules must be interpreted in ways that advance fundamental fairness. The 11th Circuit’s decision is part of a disturbing trend. Increasingly, courts are ignoring fundamental fairness and overemphasizing rigid rules and technical legal points — in many cases, deadlines of one kind or another — in ways that undermine justice.
The Supreme Court, which hears Mr. Holland’s case on Monday, should not allow this to continue. It should reverse the 11th Circuit’s deeply unfair ruling and allow Mr. Holland’s habeas petition to be heard."
As they say, watch this space to see what the extremely conservative [some would say reactionary] Supreme Court does.
The NY Times in its editorial takes up the issue in "If the Lawyer Fails":
"Our legal system is complex and a lot more powerful than any individual. That is why the Constitution guarantees people accused of serious crimes the right to counsel. If a lawyer turns out to be negligent, the system must do all it can to protect the individual’s rights.
The Supreme Court has a chance to reinforce that fundamental protection in the case of Albert Holland. A Florida prisoner, he did everything he could to ensure that his lawyer filed his habeas corpus petition, which would allow the federal courts to review his state-court conviction for first-degree murder and other crimes.
He continually asked about it, and emphasized the importance of meeting the deadlines. The lawyer repeatedly assured Mr. Holland that he would take care of it, and then missed the habeas deadline. Mr. Holland was given a new lawyer, who argued that due to the first lawyer’s extreme negligence, the failure should be excused under “equitable tolling,” which allows for deadlines to be excused in the broader interests of justice.
The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit rejected the argument, ruling that even gross negligence by a lawyer does not provide a basis for equitable tolling. Unless there was “bad faith, dishonesty, divided loyalty, mental impairment,” or something of that magnitude, the court said, the deadline would stand.
It is a shameful ruling. Mr. Holland’s lawyer’s conduct was not merely negligent. It was, as legal ethics professors and practitioners say in a brief, “intolerable, thoroughly unacceptable behavior.” The legal system cannot take away Mr. Holland’s right to challenge his conviction on the basis of inexcusably awful lawyering.
Underlying all of the law is the principle of “equity,” meaning rules must be interpreted in ways that advance fundamental fairness. The 11th Circuit’s decision is part of a disturbing trend. Increasingly, courts are ignoring fundamental fairness and overemphasizing rigid rules and technical legal points — in many cases, deadlines of one kind or another — in ways that undermine justice.
The Supreme Court, which hears Mr. Holland’s case on Monday, should not allow this to continue. It should reverse the 11th Circuit’s deeply unfair ruling and allow Mr. Holland’s habeas petition to be heard."
As they say, watch this space to see what the extremely conservative [some would say reactionary] Supreme Court does.
Comments