The Freedom Bulletin

Yesterday’s New York Times brings us the story of Albert Holland, Jr., who was sentenced to death for first-degree murder in 1996 after a trial, and later a retrial, in Florida. After he exhausted his state-level appeals, he filed a habeas corpus petition, which eventually went to the Supreme Court and was granted in 2010. Recently, a lower court awarded him a third trial. The reason for all these appeals? Holland has had to deal with one incompetent lawyer after another and was not allowed to represent himself. One ended up in jail for domestic violence and drug use, and later died of an overdose. The next was a friend of the first lawyer, who in addition to representing Holland, also represented his predecessor when he sued Holland for $40,000 in legal fees. Another lawyer filed the habeas petition 5 weeks late, despite repeated letters from Holland reminding him of the importance of the deadline, and failed to answer Holland’s questions about the status of his case.

Due in large part to Holland’s knowledge and advocacy, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and ultimately ruled in his favor, overruling the district court and appeals court’s’ decisions to deny the petition because it was late. A lower federal judge, Patricia Seitz, then paved the way for a new trial when she ruled that the state court had violated his Sixth Amendment rights by denying his repeated requests to represent himself.

Although he has been described as mentally ill, Holland has served as an excellent lawyer for himself. Justice Breyer praised him for keeping track of the deadlines for appealing death sentences better than his lawyers had. Holland also pointed out that the crime of attempted felony murder, which he had been indicted on, did not exist under Florida law. And he made the (ultimately successful) argument, supported by established precedent, that legal training is not a requirement for someone to be allowed to represent himself.

This case shows that persistence can pay off, and that sometimes ordinary people can do a better job than experts. Good for Holland for having the intelligence and the wherewithal to make sure that his legal rights were protected when his attorneys were unable and/or unwilling to do so.

Another day, and more arguments in the hearing on Gary Sampson’s 2255 petition for a new trial. I wasn’t there for the entire time, but today seemed to feature Sampson’s least persuasive arguments. The judge, Mark Wolf, actually said, “Mr. Sampson’s counsel has done a good job. They put the weakest arguments towards the end.”

Here are a few of today’s apparently not so good arguments by Sampson’s defense team:

First, Sampson’s lawyers argued that his trial lawyers failed to investigate the effects of Depakote on his demeanor, or to offer testimony to explain his demeanor to the jury. According to various news reports, Sampson had a “flat affect,” showed no remorse or emotion, and looked bored during his trial. Sampson’s lawyers today argued that the medication caused this behavior, and that his trial lawyers should have called an expert witness to explain this to the jury. Prosecutors, however, argued that Sampson was only taking Depakote for his headaches, that his bipolar disorder and not the medication caused his unsympathetic demeanor, and that despite the medication he did show emotion, crying when the death penalty verdict was announced and yelling at officers in jail. Judge Wolf indicated informally that this claim might deserve further arguments and might not be summarily dismissed.

Sampson’s attorneys also claimed that the jury had seen the victims’ bloody shirts, which would be prejudicial. Judge Wolf, who was also the trial judge, excluded the shirts, but one might have been briefly visible during a doctor’s testimony. Sampson’s then-lawyers failed to move for a curative instruction or a mistrial.

Additionally, Sampson’s team argued that his trial lawyers failed to adequately investigate and develop evidence of his brain damage by conducting more detailed testing. Prosecutors tried to shoot down this claim, praising the trial attorneys’ good lawyering and thorough testing.

On Monday, Sampson’s lawyers presented what the judge likely considers their strongest arguments – that his trial attorneys failed to present enough evidence of his background, mental illness, and brain damage. In order for Sampson to get a new trial, all of these alleged mistakes by the trial lawyers must add up to actual incompetence, and there must be a ”reasonable probability” that if it weren’t for this incompetence, the jury would have reached a different verdict, namely life in prison instead of the death penalty.

Tomorrow I probably won’t have a Sampson update because I’m going to watch Thomas Mortimer’s arraignment. I’m not sure how long these hearings will go on or when the judge will issue his ruling. This sure has been a busy week for trials .

The hearing on Gary Sampson’s 2255 (habeas corpus) petition continued today. Sampson’s defense team has raised 18 issues that they believe violated Sampson’s constitutional rights and entitle him to a new trial.

Today’s arguments aren’t as interesting to write about as yesterday’s, and Judge Mark Wolf considers them less likely to succeed. Sampson’s main argument today was that his trial lawyers failed to adequately investigate the option of pleading guilty earlier on in the process and thereby avoiding the death penalty. The law on this issue was complicated and difficult for me to understand, but I think that if Sampson had pled guilty right away, he would have been ineligible for the death penalty. However, because of a Supreme Court decision sometime during Sampson’s legal proceedings, that no longer was an option by the time he decided to plead guilty.

Sampson’s team argued that his trial attorneys failed to plan for this Supreme Court decision, which was foreshadowed by several prior decisions, and to properly advise their client. Prosecutors, however, argued that expecting someone to predict Supreme Court decisions is unreasonable and stressed the experience and competence of Sampson’s trial lawyers. In order to receive a new trial, Sampson must show that there is a reasonable probability (doesn’t have to be more likely than not) that the jurors would not have arrived at a unanimous death penalty verdict if it weren’t for the incompetence of his trial lawyers.

The hearing will continue tomorrow and probably after that. Then Judge Wolf will formally issue a ruling on whether or not to summarily dismiss Sampson’s claims. If there are any claims he does not summarily dismiss (which is likely), then there will be more detailed hearings on those. Stay tuned!

Today was the first day of a series of hearings in the case of Gary Sampson, a convicted triple-murderer who was sentenced to death back in 2004. Sampson, from Abington, MA, pleaded guilty to murdering three random, completely innocent people in a 2001 crime spree: Philip McCloskey, Jonathan Rizzo, and Robert “Eli” Whitney.

Two of the murders took place in Massachusetts and one in New Hampshire. Although Massachusetts does not have the death penalty, federal law allowed Sampson to be tried in federal court, where he received a death sentence.  

Now, Sampson and his defense team have filed a habeas corpus petition, or 2255 petition, an attempt to get a new trial because he claims his constitutional rights were violated. In this particular petition, Sampson’s lawyers claim that his trial lawyers, including Robert Sheketoff and Stephanie Page (who represented Neil Entwistle) were ineffective.

I attended today’s hearing on the 2255 petition, which lasted for most of the day at the Moakley Federal Courthouse in Boston. Family members of the victims were in the courtroom, as well as five lawyers representing Sampson and four federal prosecutors. Sampson is spending his time on federal death row in Terre Haute, Indiana, and was not at the hearing.

The prosecutors have filed a motion for summary dismissal, a request to have Sampson’s petition thrown out without discovery or detailed arguments. At the hearing, Judge Mark Wolf ruled tentatively that he would deny the government’s motion and allow the 2255 petition to go forward, at least with respect to most of the issues the lawyers argued about today.

Sampson’s main complaint is that his trial lawyers failed to introduce adequate evidence of his history of mental illness during the penalty phase of the trial, which was essentially the only part, because he pled guilty. If it weren’t for their incompetence, Sampson’s team claims, at least one juror might have voted for life in prison.

According to defense attorney William McDaniels, Sampson fell ten feet down a flight of stairs when he was 4, was physically and emotionally abused, injured his head in about a dozen fights over the years, was in a car accident at age 20, jumped off a roof, was beaten in prison, and compounded these problems with drug and alcohol use. McDaniels says that Sampson is in the bottom 1% of the population in terms of mental functioning, and that he has bipolar disorder, as well as damage to the frontal, temporal, and occipital lobes of his brain, which combined to cause his recklessness, arrogance, and lack of remorse. However, little evidence was introduced at trial to corroborate these claims.

Sampson’s lawyers claimed that his trial attorneys failed to contact his family and friends in a timely fashion and did not try hard enough to get them to testify about his background and childhood. The prosecutors, on the other hand, defended the defense lawyers from the trial. They claimed that they tried all available means to contact Sampson’s family short of issuing subpoenas, but they refused to talk. Also, according to prosecutors, Sampson’s trial lawyers delayed contacting his family to give them time to get over the shock of learning of their son’s crimes, or decided against calling them to the witness stand because they would hurt Sampson’s case.

Additionally, both sides agreed that Sampson’s trial lawyers failed to introduce records from the Brockton Hospital of Sampson’s childhood head injury. Prosecutors downplayed this omission, arguing that it would not have changed the verdict.

The lawyers also argued about the credibility of a witness who downplayed the abuse Sampson suffered as a child. Sampson’s attorneys said that the trial lawyers should have impeached this witness, while the prosecutors, as they did throughout today’s hearing, maintained that the trial attorneys were competent and did a more than adequate job.

The arguments will continue tomorrow and most likely the day after. I’ll probably continue stopping by and will be sure to blog back with whatever I observe of the proceedings.

Read more at the Globe, Herald, and AP.