The 6th Amendment: Supreme Court to Hear Texas Death Row Case

November 09, 2012

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Texas death row inmate Carlos Trevino. Trevino was convicted in 1997 of the rape and murder of a 15-year-old girl at a San Antonio park. The ruling of this case could determine whether a defendant in Texas has a right to a "competent" attorney during habeas appeals. A habeas appeal is a challenge to a criminal conviction, which considers whether the defendant's constitutional rights were violated during his or her original trial.

"Ineffective assistance of counsel" occurs when a client's attorney does not devote full attention to the client. Ineffective assistance of counsel denies a client his Sixth Amendment right to a competent lawyer.

The Supreme Court defined the standards for ineffective assistance in Strickland v. Washington. Generally it, occurs when an attorney's conduct undermines the adversary process to a point where doubt exists as to whether the trial produced a just result. If an attorney is incompetent or ineffective, this can lead to a wrongful conviction.

This past spring, the Supreme Court decided in Martinez v. Ryan that the failure of state habeas lawyers to argue that their client's trial attorney was ineffective did not prevent the defendant from making such an argument later in the appeals process.

According to Trevino's current attorney, the defendant's first habeas lawyer failed to investigate the errors of the trial outside of the immediate court record that already existed. When the habeas lawyer eventually became sick, he did not proceed with the case. According to the revised habeas appeal, the overall lack of advocacy deprived the defendant of fair representation; the habeas attorney did not sufficiently address any issues of ineffective assistance of counsel related to the original trial.

Therefore, the question in the Trevino case is whether the court's decision in Martinez applies in Texas. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided in November 2011 that the Martinez decision does not apply. The decision was decided based on the notion that the laws governing habeas appeals in Texas differ from those in Arizona (Martinez).

Now, the Supreme Court will be presented with this issue, which will reevaluate the law applicability of Martinez.

Ultimately, it is extremely important that a defendant receives effective legal assistance at all critical stages of a criminal proceeding. If a defendant's Sixth Amendment right is violated in any way, subsequent appeals should address this important advocacy issue. In Trevino's case, the defendant's right may have been violated not only once, but twice. And if such shortcomings did in fact exist, the consequence could be his life.

If you are facing serious criminal charges, you should have adequate representation from an experienced criminal law attorney.

Article provided by Shook Gunter & Wirskye, Attorneys at Law
Visit us at www.sgw-law.com/