When I grow up
I want to be him:
“I’m the head of the [public defenders']office for New Haven and I’m a vocal anti-death-penalty person in the community,” [Tom] Ullmann said. “It would be a terrible message if I didn’t take this case. There was never any hesitation in my mind about taking it. As a lawyer, I would always rather be on the side that’s advocating for someone’s life rather than planning, plotting, strategizing and intending to kill someone.”
“Frankly, I never thought I’d have to deal with another death-penalty case in New Haven,” Ullmann said Tuesday in a telephone interview from a conference in Oklahoma City. Culligan represented Hayes in court Tuesday.
“However, the responsibility is pretty clear,” said Ullmann, who participated in a protest march outside the prison where serial killer Michael Ross was executed in 2005. He also was among a group of defense lawyers who called for an end to the death penalty at the state Capitol that year.
“I don’t look at that responsibility as just providing adequate counsel but providing zealous and aggressive representation,” Ullmann said. “And that is what we intend to do. We ultimately will be expending an incredible number of resources to prepare whatever defense there is, including saving Mr. Hayes’ life.”
More here
| Print article | This entry was posted by Gideon on August 8, 2007 at 6:26 pm, and is filed under cheshire, ct legal news. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 4 years ago
Ullman’s fanaticism (let’s not forget he’s spending the public’s money) is the reason that (a) there should be a mandatory death penalty and (b) resourrces should be limited depending on the case to what is necessary to provide a good defense. In Hayes’ case, guilt is clear. And the state shouldn’t have to spend $1MM litigating the punishment phase.
about 4 years ago
Well there’s a simple solution, isn’t there? Don’t charge the death penalty. If the death penalty is sought, the defense will and should be vigorous.
Perhaps when you’re arrested, you can ask for a lawyer that will not represent you zealously since he’s determined you’re guilty.
I’ll take Ullman.
about 4 years ago
The issue is not the zeal, but the cost. The system can keep costs down.
And we have a right to charge death, and we have a right to control costs.
about 4 years ago
Sure, Mr. O’Brien. You’re absolutesly right. However, the next time your state punishes the wrong guy with the death penalty, and the guy that actually *was* guilty kills another person, you can explain to that person’s family that a zealous defense simply cost more than their loved-one’s life
about 4 years ago
Ok Ruth, let’s get out of la-la land. The fact is that resources are scarce and that not every death case needs millions of dollars spent on it. Personally, I’d rather have the public defenders spend more resources on people who have strong defenses.
First, cases like this one cry out for a mandatory death penalty. A mandatory death penalty in cases like this would save a lot of money and would end the endless whining over ineffective rep at the penalty phase.
Second, this “we’ll spend, spend, spend” attitude is fine, for a defense attorney defending a client, but it needs to be reined in by society.
I don’t think your hypo undermines my points at all.
about 4 years ago
[quote comment="3786"]Ok Ruth, let’s get out of la-la land. The fact is that resources are scarce and that not every death case needs millions of dollars spent on it. Personally, I’d rather have the public defenders spend more resources on people who have strong defenses.
First, cases like this one cry out for a mandatory death penalty. A mandatory death penalty in cases like this would save a lot of money and would end the endless whining over ineffective rep at the penalty phase.
Second, this “we’ll spend, spend, spend” attitude is fine, for a defense attorney defending a client, but it needs to be reined in by society.
I don’t think your hypo undermines my points at all.[/quote]
This is rather frightening. You want to make subjective determinations to decide whose life is worth vigorously defending?
Thank God you’re not a criminal defense lawyer.
about 4 years ago
Oh. Boy.
The U.S. Supreme Court says we have heightened due process in d.p. cases. The U.S. Supreme Court says people whose lives are on the line get individualized consideration. I don’t know Mr. O’Brien (actually, I do know a Sean O’Brien, but he is a criminal defense lawyer, and a d.p. lawyer, and a good one)but Mr. O’Brien needs to read Wiggins and Williams and Rompilla and the ABA Standards for d.p. lawyers, and the annotations thereto.
I know of a case on appeal right now; d.p. case; first time it was tried, the jury HUNG during guilt phase. HUNG meaning the jury was not convinced of his guilt. Second time it was tried, guy was found guilty, but got LWOP’d. Good thing somebody spent some $$ to make sure he got some good rep, so that he is not on death row, when he MIGHT BE INNOCENT.
about 4 years ago
Actually Gideon, if I were doing criminal defense work, I would zealously represent the defendant. I just wouldn’t do anything unethical. The point is that defendants aren’t entitled to unlimited state-funded resources in their defenses.
Ruth, I’ve read Wiggins et alia. The point is not what the lawyer should do–every one knows that. The point is the state of the law and the amount of resources expended on DP cases. Resources are scarce, and do you really think that a judge, looking at the facts of the Petit home invasion, should authorize a trial budget of say, $1,000,000. Answer: No. (That, of course, is not taking into account the risk that some liberal criminal coddling judges may decide that these guys needed more money.)
about 4 years ago
Here we go again with the constitutionally indefensible “society has a right” nonsense. . .
about 4 years ago
“Madison’s observation applies to the Judicial Branch with at least as much force as to the Legislative and Executive Branches. While overreaching by the Legislative and Executive Branches may result in the sacrifice of individual protections that the Constitution was designed to secure against action of the State, judicial overreaching may result in sacrifice of the equally important right of the people to govern themselves.”
about 4 years ago
Quoting the dissent in Furman v. Georgia for the proposition that “society” has the right to kill individuals as inexpensively as possible? That’s the best you’ve got?
about 4 years ago
Mark, you truly are disingenuous. The issue is not whether “society has the right to kill individuals as inexpensively as possible”, the issue is what power society has. Clearly, society has the right to extract income taxes, tell us which side of the street to drive on etc. etc. It also has the right to exact capital punishment for certain crimes, and when judges extra-constitutional restrictions on that right, they are impacting our right, as a free people, to govern ourselves. I fail to see how this is a controversial thought at all. States do not have to provide whatever resources some public defender asserts is necessary to give the accused a fair trial. A simple proposition.
What I’ve argued is that the states do have the power to impose mandatory death sentences and that Woodson was an illegitimate grab by the Supreme Court. To the extent I am right, the people’s right to govern themselves has been diminished.
about 4 years ago
Rights are something equals have as to equals (I have a right to be left alone by you), and the less powerful have as to the more powerful (we have a right not to be put in prison without due process). What the more powerful have with respect to the less powerful is . . . powers. It is silly to say that the corporate body has rights as to its constituent members because the body, by definition, has more power than the individual.
If you and your friends got together, you might have the power to take my stuff and my life; the government has the power to confiscate our freedom, our property, and our lives. In neither case would we say that the more powerful entity has the right to harm the less.
Society does not have the right to extract income taxes (in fact, in Texas the constitution forbids income taxes); it does, however, have the power. Similarly, it doesn’t have the right to tell us what side of the street to drive on, and it doesn’t have the right to kill any of us.
So, in part, you’re on the right track. Society (whatever that is — the corporate body of people, or government) has the power to kill individuals. But not, as to its victims, the right.
I think society is the wrong word for what I understand you to be trying to express since the only thing outside of society is the individual. The courts are part of the government (society’s expression of its will), as much as the legislative and executive branches. So when you say “society has the right” I assume that you mean society has the right as to an individual. If what you really meant was that the states have rights as to the federal government, I might well agree.
about 4 years ago
Perhaps Mr. O’Brien would prefer the Star Chamber. *Much* less expensive. And the defendant confessed! (Always.) It’s an open-and-shut case when the defendant confesses, isn’t it? Society has its lust for blood (e.g. right to execute people) satisfied, and the tax payers aren’t out a dime. The only losers are confessed criminals. It’s a perfect solution!
about 4 years ago
Thank God we have the wisdom to know who deserves to live and who to die.
And thank God nobody ever confesses falsely.
about 4 years ago
This may sound weird, but is there a way to charge capital murder and not seek the death penalty?
Some background: I am from Cheshire and knew the Petit family quite well, especially the girls. I am also against the death penalty, for a number of reasons that aren’t really germane here. I was nevertheless glad to hear that Komisarjevsky and Hayes were going to be charged with capital murder, because in capital murder cases where the death penalty is *not* imposed, there’s a mandatory sentence of life without parole. And to put it simply, the idea that the people who did this might someday ever get out of jail seemed obscene.
I’m still against the death penalty, although should either of those two end up being executed don’t expect to see me on the protest lines. I’m just wondering if there’s a mechanism by which the prosecutor’s office can decide not to seek the death penalty (for whatever reason) but still have the case proceed under the capital statue because it meets the legal definition of capital murder. Or does the decision not to seek the death penalty automatically downgrade the prosecution to a “vanilla” murder one charge, without the mandatory minimum?
about 4 years ago
JTD: Yes there is. Murder (just plain ole murder) in CT carries a penalty of 25 to life, with life being 60 years.
There is no parole for someone convicted of murder.
So yes, they can charge a capital felony but not seek the death penalty.
Which means that both these guys can plead guilty, spare everyone a trial and go away for life without the possibility of parole.
about 4 years ago
[quote comment="4104"]
Which means that both these guys can plead guilty, spare everyone a trial and go away for life without the possibility of parole.[/quote]
To which my initial reaction is, “Smashing, let’s go for it”. As long as those two are never going to walk free again, I see no reason to turn them into celebrities in what will most likely (based on CT’s record with the death penalty) be the long involved process of *not* killing them.
Thanks for the answer, I wasn’t clear on whether non-capital murder carried the possibility of parole. Looks like it does not.