Home
About Us
News
Get Involved
Internships
Casework
Journal
Training
Regional Groups
Events
Support Us
Our Partners
|
|
About
Us
The
Charity
Andrew
Lee Jones
The
Death Penalty in the USA
About Us 
Amicus is a charitable organisation which aims to provide assistance to
those practising in the field of capital defence in the USA. It carries
out this aim by:
- Drawing attention to the iniquities of present US capital procedure
- Arranging placements for UK lawyers (case assistants) and post-graduate
students (interns) in the US
- Providing training for interns and those who wish to learn more about
the death penalty
- Providing financial assistance for students undertaking internships,
or wishing to qualify as a capital defence attorney
- When requested, assisting US attorneys with legal work from the UK,
in the following ways:
- drafting amicus curiae briefs
- researching novel areas of law or fact
- presenting international applications
- providing trained Trial Observers
To date, 3 recipients of the Charity's funding have completed their US
legal education and are practising full time as capital defence attorneys. Approximately
15-20 people undertake internships each year, a figure that rises annually.
To date, Amicus has funded or placed over 150 people to work in the US.
In addition, Amicus offers advice and assistance to many others considering
such placements.
The Charity also earmarks funds each year for senior undergraduate students
participating in the programmes run by the University of Warwick and the
University of Central England.
Amicus has developed substantial contacts with many attorneys' offices
in the USA, and has also developed formal links with the American Bar
Association to ensure the help is given where it is needed most. Amicus
also has close links with other legal groups in the UK and elsewhere who
are involved in the issue of capital punishment throughout the world.
The Charity
The stated objects of Amicus are "to promote the relief of suffering
and distress to those persons and families of those persons who are awaiting
execution in any state of the United States of America and who, for reasons
of their poverty, are in need of legal or other assistance to ensure the
preservation of their rights of appeal and to ensure that their imprisonment
is administered, so far as is possible, humanely."
President
Michael Mansfield QC
Board of Trustees
Gillian Christopher-Chambers, Joanne Cross, Sophie Garner, Claire Jenkins,
Mark McDonald, Jane Officer
Committee
Louise Maclynn, Shahmeem Purdasy, Patrick Moran, Anthony Solomou, Stephen
Hellman, Jon Yorke, Courtenay Barklem
Advisory Panel
Jan Arriens, Founder, Lifelines
Prof. Hugo Bedau Tufts University, Massachusetts
Peter Carter QC, Chair, Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales
Richard Dieter, Death Penalty Information Centre
Bianca Jagger, Goodwill Ambassador, Council of Europe
Mel James, Law Society International Human Rights Committee
George Kendall, former Director, NAACP Legal Defence Fund
Robin Maher, Director, American Bar Association Death Penalty Representation
Project
Sister Helen Prejean, New Orleans, Louisiana
Liz Semel, Director, ABA Death Penalty Representation Committee
Baroness Stern, King's College, London
Academic Panel
Amicus has formed an academic panel of UK and US academics and senior
practitioners who can provide guidance and assistance for junior lawyers
undertaking work, as well a resource for those researching aspects of
death penalty lawyer. Directed by Julian Killingley, of the University
of Central England at Birmingham, the panel will provide a base of experts
to oversee much of the Amicus programme.
Andrew Lee Jones
Andrew Lee Jones was born in rural Louisiana in August 1955. The fifth
son of a black share-cropping family, his life changed on the death of
his father when Andrew was 17. The family was evicted from their home
and Andrew, devastated by the death of a much-loved father, took off to
Baton Rouge and, subsequently, a life of petty crime. In the 1970's Andrew
served two years of a three year sentence in the State Penitentiary for
stealing a six pack of beer and later a sentence for the aggravated battery
of a girl-friend. In 1984 Andrew was charged with the kidnapping, rape
and murder of the 11 year old daughter of his estranged girlfriend. The
evidence offered at his trial, which lasted less than a day, was that
he knew the victim. No scientific evidence was produced by the prosecution.
He was found guilty and sentenced to death by an all white jury in a courtroom
where the only black faces were those of the family members, despite 30%
of the local population being black. Black jury members are traditionally
excluded from serving in East Baton Rouge parish.
On July 19th 1991 the five members of the Board of Pardons met at 8
am at Angola, Louisiana State Penitentiary, to hear the final please for
clemency from witnesses and appeals from the defence lawyers. Discussion
of guilt or innocence is not part of this procedure. Andrew's mother,
brothers and sister begged for his life, a psychiatrist and a psychologist
gave information relating to the family situation and Andrew's state of
mind. Finally, the defence lawyer at the original trial gave evidence.
David Price firstly offered his apologies for not giving Andrew a fair
defence. He was a court appointed lawyer and had received the papers only
a short time prior to the trial. He was not qualified to conduct capital
trials being less than five years out of law school and this was his first
capital trial. He saw his client only occasionally prior to the trial.
He then went on to say that he had only recently been made aware that
his client was medicated with Thorazine, a psychotropic drug before and
during the trial. "…I was completely unaware of this…Particularly
in capital cases, an attorney asks lots of questions…It was difficult
getting any information from him…The jury should have known of this
information, it may have given them a reason to give him mercy, give him
a life sentence…". The amount of medication given during his
trial exceeded the amount needed for tranquilising purposes.
Andrew, himself, had no recollection of that fateful night except that
he was drunk. Prior to the trial a defence witness was beaten by the police
and withdrew his statement. There was not evidence of a break in at the
girl's house despite the prosecution's allegations of the use of force.
The girl's mother continued to visit Andrew on Death Row for nearly two
years until she became a heroin addict. Less that 10 hours before Andrew
was electrocuted, she rang him and said she was really sorry, she had
never meant for this to happen.
If I Should Die: A Death Row Correspondence
This book chronicles the 15 months' correspondence between Andrew and
Jane through a collection of edited letters and diaries. To purchase the
book, please send a cheque for £7.95 (includes postage) to Jane
Officer, 1 Hemyock Road, Selly Oak, Birmingham, B29 4DG. Click
here to read a review of the book on the Texas Observer. Alternatively,
you can click
here to purchase the book from Amazon Seller "Badclimber"
- both sellers donate all proceeds from book sales to Amicus.
The Death Penalty in the
USA
Although the US shares the same Common Law legal system as the UK, there
are many differences that become very clear in the implementation of the
death penalty. Problems arise at both trial and appeal level, which are
often connected with the inadequacy of representation afforded to indigent
defendants. There are also fundamental issues of innocence, arbitrariness
and racism that despite great efforts have not been solved. There are
also areas where the USA is clearly out of step with international standards.
The trial and appeal process
There are many features of the US criminal trial system that would appear
unusual to a UK lawyer. To start with, the judge is often elected, in
some cases standing on a "tough on crime" ticket. The jurors
are selected from a large pool by a complicated questioning process; any
juror who is opposed to the death penalty is automatically excluded. Following
trial, there is a first appeal which often takes place very quickly. During
the subsequent maze of appeals any points that were not argued at trial
are unlikely to be allowed. The appeals process may take years, firstly
going through the State courts, and then through the Federal courts arguing
constitutional violations.
Ineffective assistance of Counsel
Despite this long and complicated appeal system, a large proportion of
those on death row do not have any lawyers at all. Currently, in California,
approximately 170 out of 500 death row inmates are unrepresented.
In the UK anyone charged with murder will be represented by two barristers
and a solicitor. In the US, attorneys are often court appointed, which
does not mean that they need to be experienced. The levels of remuneration
for their efforts are startlingly low. Often there is one payment for
the entire trial, no matter how long it takes, out of which must come
all expenses, including charges for any professional witnesses. In one
Texas case where an attorney had rendered particularly appalling service
to his client the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals discovered that he had
received only $11.84 per hour, which explained the problem: "The
justice system only got what it paid for" (Martinez-Macias v Collins).
The District Attorney, who is frequently elected, will have vast resources
behind him. In contrast, the Capital Resource Centers, legal offices whose
attorneys had considerable skill and experience in defending capital cases,
had their funding from the federal government removed in 1996.
The result is that "ineffective assistance of counsel" is
one of the most frequent grounds of appeal, and the level of what is regarded
as "adequate assistance" is quite remarkable. In the 1992 trial
of George McFarland his lawyer spent much of the trial asleep, missing
out key prosecution witnesses. The trial judge accepted that there was
a constitutional right to a lawyer, but stated that "the Constitution
doesn't say the lawyer has to be awake." The Court of Appeals rejected
McFarland's claim for ineffective assistance.
Innocence and technical default
The majority of successful appeals take place in the Federal Courts, which
have appointed judges. In the past, some death penalty attorneys were
achieving a high success rate in reversing decisions of the lower courts
for constitutional violations. In an attempt to speed up the appeal proceedings
on capital cases, the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act was
introduced in 1996 which severely limited the ability to argue points
that had not been argued earlier. Time limits were introduced for appeals
which are often measured in weeks.
The result of this has been a massive increase in the risk of appeals
not affording a fair review of the conviction and sentence and therefore
also increasing the risk of executing the innocent. Where there is new
evidence proving innocence which is technically time-barred, the Supreme
Court has held that it would only be unconstitutional to execute such
a person if they can provide "truly persuasive demonstration of actual
innocence". Where they have no proper representation this can be
difficult, although nearly 100 people have been released from death row
since 1973 following conclusive evidence of innocence.
Arbitrariness and Racism
Despite the 3,600 people on death row in the US today, in only a small
percentage of those tried for homicide is the death penalty sought, and
of those found guilty of capital murder, only 3% are sentenced to death.
The decision about who should be tried for capital murder is in the hands
of an elected district attorney. This creates some startling results,
particularly in the southern United States, where someone who is black
may be find himself before an all white jury in an atmosphere that is
not much different to that of a lynch mob. In the case of McCleskey v.
Kemp in 1988 the Supreme Court heard evidence that an African-American
convicted of killing someone who was white was 4.3 times more likely to
receive the death penalty than a white killing an African-American. The
Court held, by 5-4 that these statistics did not render the use of the
death penalty unconstitutional.
|
|
The charity is designed to assist
in the provision of legal representation for those awaiting capital trial
and punishment in the US.
|
