Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments: Constitutional Right to State Capital Collateral Appeal: The Due Process of Executing a Convict Without Attorney Representation

• NCJ Number: 123629
• Journal: Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 80 Issue: 4 Dated: (Winter 1990) Pages: 1190-1210
• Author(s): D P Zeithaml Jr
• Date Published: 1990
• Length: 21 pages
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS.

Annotation

This analysis of the United States Supreme Court's 1989 decision regarding the right to state-appointed counsel for indigent death row inmates seeking state postconviction appeals concludes that the Court arbitrarily limited inmates' rights and that these inmates need protection of this safeguard under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Abstract

In Murray v. Giarratano the plurality argued that equal protection and due process rights to state-appointed attorneys for mandatory appeals are sufficient and that the Constitution does not mandate state-appointed attorneys for state postconviction appeals. The dissent focused on the Fourteenth Amendment and maintained that the procedures at trial and direct appeal fail to meet the standards of accuracy necessary in death penalty cases. Thus, it correctly noted that the Murray decision failed to offer death row inmates a constitutional right to meaningful access to the courts. It should have recognized the continuity involved in the doctrines of the right to assistance of counsel and meaningful access to the courts. Taking an individual's life is too important and irreversible an action to allow without the procedural safeguard of government-appointed attorneys during a crucial part of the adjudication process. 146 footnotes.