Tuesday, December 9, 2014

How much damage can one "bad lawyer" cause? A Death Penalty Verdict is in Jeopardy because of Vodka Guzzling Lawyer. / Michael A. Haber, Esq. **ARRESTED / **305DUI

Meet Robert Wayne Holsey.  Yes that's him below...

Robert was convicted for committing an armed robbery of a convenience store and felony murder for then shooting and killing Will Robinson, a pursuing Sheriff's Deputy (pictured below). 

The crimes occurred in 1995, the trial occurred in 1997 and Robert was sentenced to death in that year (1997).  It's now 2014 and Robert, having almost exhausted the appeals process, has filed a new appeal seeking clemency and a stay of his imminent execution date (today, December 9th, 2014). What is the basis of the 11th hour appeal?  Bad lawyering.

Robert claims, and both his trial lawyer and his trial lawyer's "record" agree, that Robert was ineffectively assisted by counsel during his 1997 robbery / murder trial.  Robert's trial lawyer has admitted that during the trial he (the lawyer) was drinking a quart of vodka a day and was not fit to defend anyone at the time.  That he (the lawyer) was an alcoholic is incontroverted as the lawyer was in fact disbarred in 2006 for alcoholism and theft of client funds, and although the claim of "ineffective assistance of counsel" has previously been rejected by appellate court's in this case it is being renewed once again, 17 years after the fact (and 19 years after the incident).

The death penalty and death penalty cases are controversial.  Many folks are adamant that the death penalty is immoral and smacks in the face of our democracy while others are equally passionate that the ultimate sanction is a necessary evil.  However, most would agree that, given our constitutional system of criminal justice it is imperative, especially in death cases, that the accused be afforded competent legal representation.  

Having been found guilty of heinous and unforgivable crimes in a death friendly State Robert is entitled to have the jury consider the various aggravating and mitigating factors when contemplating a recommendation / verdict of either life in prison the death penalty.  In this case, if the jury did not hear relevant, admissible and potentially mitigating evidence (it is argued that the drunk lawyer failed to present evidence of Robert's "intellectual disability or of his horrific childhood") then his death sentence may run afoul of due process, fundamental fairness and the Constitution.  If, after hearing all of the evidence death remains the consensus, then, in my opinion, so be it.  (To my Machiavellian mind, if you rob a store with a gun, shoot your pursuing cop twice, killing him, get caught and convicted, well, then you bought your ticket to the afterlife pallie...)

For more than 23 years Michael A. Haber, P.A. has been providing creative, effective and zealous advocacy and counsel in cases ranging from DUI to drug trafficking and from misdemeanors to first degree murder.  

At Michael A. Haber, P.A. "Its all about reasonable doubt"!

Michael A. Haber, Esq. is prepared to speak with you about your case!

1-888-SHARK-8-1, 305-381-8686, 305-798-2220, **ARRESTED, **305DUI, **MIAMIDUI, **MIAMILAW or **HABERLAW.

Like @ www.facebook.com/haberpa / Follow @ http://habercriminallaw.blogspot.com / Twitter @Sharky910 / Call @ **ARRESTED or **305DUI

No comments:

Post a Comment