Florida Death Row Advocacy Group

Wilkinson v. Austin, 125 S. Ct. 2384, 162 L. Ed. 2d 174, June 2005 In the case the ACLU of Ohio and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed suit to stop the arbitrary placement of inmates at a super-maximum security, Ohio State Penitentiary (OSP), near Youngstown. Over the years, the State of Ohio had assigned inmates to the Penitentiary with little regard for the criminal offenses for which inmates are incarcerated. OSP was built with the notion to house the “worst” criminals in the state. However, with lack of supply of these “worst of the worst” criminals in the Ohio system, the State began to arbitrarily assign more run-of-the-mill inmates to the Penitentiary. The State did so using extremely limited guidelines for determining whether an inmate should be sent to the super-maximum Penitentiary.

In its ruling on June 13, 2005, the Supreme Court found that the extreme deprivations and punishment found in ‘supermax’ prisons warrant protections for prisoners’ due process. Justice Kennedy wrote in the Court’s unanimous decision that “incarceration at OSP is synonymous with extreme isolation,” and that “OSP inmates are deprived of almost any environmental or sensory stimuli and of almost all human contact.”

The ACLU has successfully challenged supermax confinement in several states including Connecticut, Virginia, Wisconsin, New Mexico and Ohio since 2001. These institutions commonly require 23-solitary confinement in cells with limited access to rehabilitative programs. The stark living conditions have led to mental deterioration in some prisoners and have proven dangerous to prisoners with preexisting mental illness. In February, the ACLU National Prison Project and Indiana affiliate filed a lawsuit regarding Indiana’s supermax unit after conditions at that facility spurred four suicides and numerous self-mutilations by mentally ill prisoners.

Senate bill 1088, The Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005

Senate Bill 1088 is being considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It eliminates state prisoners’ ability to access federal courts in order to have their criminal cases reviewed. If passed, it would prevent the federal courts from reviewing many types of legal errors in criminal cases.

Federal habeas corpus has been the principle way, since 1976 when capital punishment was resumed in some states, by which the federal courts have forced states to follow constitutional standards for the imposition of the death penalty. Those standards are important if capital punishment is to be administered in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner. However, death penalty statutes are complicated and state courts often do not interpret them correctly. Therefore, for many prisoners with claims of innocence, a federal habeas proceeding habeas proceedings is their only chance to establish their innocence in a federal court.

Currently, courts decide if states have established competent legal counsel for people sentenced to death.

Under S.1088, the U.S. Attorney General, would have the authority to decide if states’ indigent defense systems are providing proper representation. As it is inappropriate for the Attorney General, an unobjective observer, to make such a decision, the Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005 is definitely not aimed at providing competent legal representation. Some critics have been referring to the bill as the “Steam Roller Procedures Act of 2005” as it would take away the ability of state prisoners to gain access to federal courts.

Florida Supreme Court (FLSC) Capital Decision Review

Robert Eugene Hendrix v. State of Florida, 30 Fla. L. Weekly S 564 (July 2005). Relief denied. Defendant appealed an order of the circuit court denying a motion for post conviction DNA testing under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. Relief denied.Court analyzed two of the defendant’s claims: whether the post-conviction court erred in holding that shackling did not deny Hendrix his right to a fair trial; and whether it erred in denying relief on Hendrix’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

Reasoning: Court held that defendant has not met either of the Strickland prongs. First, he failed to show that his counsel’s performance was deficient for not objecting to shackling. It is highly unlikely that objecting to the shackles would have produced any results. Moreover, the court undertook very careful methods to ensure that the jury was not aware of the shackles.

Second, Hendrix has failed to show any prejudice. As the post-conviction court found, all witnesses testified that the shackles were not visible to the jury, and no testimony was presented to show that the jury or anybody else even heard Hendrix’s shackles during the trial. Moreover, Hendrix has failed to allege any fact to show that his appellate counsel was even aware that Hendrix was shackled during the trial. It appears that Hendrix was shackled solely because that was the trial court’s unspoken policy as to all criminal defendants. Defense counsel never objected to the shackling issue with the trial court, so there would be no information in the record as to whether Hendrix was shackled during the trial. The court was not able to confirm whether Hendrix was indeed shackled at his trial until after such matters were established in a post-conviction proceeding and appellate counsel is not considered ineffective for failing to present evidence which was outside of the appellate record on review.