Want to bet the appellate lawyer argues the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel? Should a defense attorney accept the request of his client to argue for death?
BROWNSVILLE
Man gets death for killing children
A man convicted of killing and beheading three children, including two of his own, told a judge Friday he wanted the death penalty, and he got his wish.
After about three hours of deliberation, jurors sentenced John Allen Rubio, 23, to death by lethal injection. He was convicted Thursday on three counts of capital murder, one for each of the three children he admitted to suffocating, stabbing and decapitating March 11.
Rubio, who earlier Friday told state District Judge Robert Garza that he wanted to be executed, stood hunched over with his eyes cast down as the sentence was read.
Rubio's attorney Alfredo Padilla did not present any evidence during the penalty phase of the trial to compel the jury to instead impose a life sentence.
He said Rubio told him Friday that he wanted to die.
"Is it your belief that God has forgiven you and you want to be with your children in heaven?" Padilla asked. Rubio said he did.
Padilla urged jurors to sentence Rubio to death.
"If you believe he intentionally and knowingly committed this act, then I believe that you should grant my defendant's wish and sentence him to death," Padilla said
I seems disingenuous, if not downright odd, to argue during guilt/innocence that your client is insane, or at least mentally ill, then turn around and say, "Hey, folks, he knows what he wants, so give him the death penalty like he's asking for."
Posts: 515 | Location: austin, tx, usa | Registered: July 02, 2001
The jury did give him death, but not because he asked for it, but because they followed the law in answering the special issues. However, it was an emotional sight to see, all the way around. And FYI, we gave the jury a 4th special issue on mental retardation. Looks like we will make some law on this case no matter what. Thanks also to A.P. Merillat from the Special Prosecution Unit for doing such a great job in the punishment phase. A.P. - the jury loved you.
If the client is competent (which is presumably an issue that would already have been dealt with), then arguably his attorney cannot present evidence (such as would mitigate his client's punishment) over his objection. But see Fontnette, 24 S.W.3d at 650. Subject to exceptions not relevant, "a lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives and general methods of representation". Tex.Discip.R.Prof.Conduct 1.02. If the objective chosen by the client is a death sentence after the lawyer has complied with the requirement that he "explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation", then how can the lawyer offer evidence contrary to that objective? The judge apparently did not step in to say: "Padilla to be effective you must offer some evidence that would aid the jury in preserving your client's life." The meaning of "effective" assistance must be tempered by the ethical duty of the lawyer. Furthermore, a defendant's wishes "inform" a court's later view of the reasonableness of the particular course of action taken by the attorney. Hayes, 301 F.3d 1054.
I would have to say George Lott came pretty close to waiving his appeal, but I think when 37.071(h) says "automatic" it means there is going to be some review, period.
Karen: Great job on a horrific case. Would you please fax to us here at TDCAA a copy of your 4th special issue on mental retardation? Lots of people want to know how that is working out....
