Atkins' sentence has been commuted not because he is retarded but because of prosecutorial misconduct--not providing the defense with details of an unexplained 16 minute break in a co-defendant's recorded interview.


http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-news_atkins_0118jan18,0,7277862.story?coll=hr_tab01_layout

AND

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/17/AR2008011703172.html

UPDATED AND AMENDED TO COMPLY WITH "HOME OFFICE" PREFERENCES.

Comment: This ruling sounds like a fudge to me.

Question: How did this get to the SCOTUS on retardation if the prosecution did something so wrong?

JAS

[This message was edited by JAS on 01-18-08 at .]

[This message was edited by JAS on 01-18-08 at .]

[This message was edited by JAS on 01-18-08 at .]

Attorney Struggled Over Case For Years

YORKTOWN, Va. -- Lawyer Leslie P. Smith brooded over what he knew for a decade: information that might spare the life of an inmate on Virginia's death row. He had thought about disclosing it long ago. But back in 1998, he had been told not to jeopardize the interests of his own client.

The case he could not forget was that of Daryl Atkins, who was convicted in a carjacking murder in York County, Va., and whose appeals spurred the U.S. Supreme Court to a landmark ruling that banned executions of mentally retarded inmates. Ironically, Atkins remained on death row in spite of the historic decision, his own mental limitations still under debate.

All the while, there was Smith, a solo practitioner in Hampton, sometimes pondering his vow of silence. He had been the attorney for Atkins's co-defendant. And what he felt he knew was this: His own client had been coached in his testimony to help ensure that Atkins got the death penalty.

The rest of the article

If the attorney knew about this claim he should have raised it before. Far from being admired, he should be scorned. He was gambling with the defendant's life. He also (indirectly) obtained what is basically an advisory opinion because the retardation claim should never have reached the SCOTUS with this issue in the picture. Am I wrong to be offended?

JAS

[This message was edited by JAS on 01-22-08 at .]

Wow, yes, offended, absolutely. Allowing (helping, facilitating) your client to lie so that someone else loses their life. Sounds even criminal, doesn't it??? Definite ethical issues--suborning perjury, etc.

And why is it okay for a defense to do anything available (allow perjury) to protect a client who has admitted to at the very least being present when someone was shot? He's saying now that what happened during the interview "is not what was wrong" it's the fact that it wasn't disclosed. Amazing how he with that statement frees himself from blame because he has no duty to disclose exculpatory information. If it wasn't true, his client should not have testified about it--and that is his duty.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JAS:
Am I wrong to be offended?

---

How do you feel now?

Three judge panel says: No evidence of misconduct for York-Poquoson prosecutor; charges dismissed

Virginia State Bar case against York-Poquoson prosecutor declared unfounded by three judge Circuit Court panel

July 19, 2010

All along, York- Poquoson Commonwealth's Attorney Eileen Addison said she was being made a scapegoat by the Virginia State Bar, and on Monday a three-judge Circuit Court panel declared there was no evidence to support misconduct charges leveled against her.

Addison and Newport News attorney Cathy Krinick were accused of coaching William Jones in the capital murder trial of Daryl Atkins and withholding information from Atkins' defense attorney. Atkins and Jones were co-defendants in the 1996 robbery and murder of Langley Air Force airman Erick Nesbitt.

Her hearing was scheduled for three days, but it took only a few hours for a three-judge Circuit Court panel to dismiss all charges against Addison.

The rest of the story

I don't think words exist for such an erosion of justice.

How about, "I wasn't born with enough middle fingers"?