At Guantánamo, a Death Penalty Case Without a Death Penalty Lawyer

The Guantánamo military commissions, the scheme created by the government to try 9/11 and other detainees, have devolved into an unacceptable and alarming assault on defense lawyers attempting to provide fair representation to their clients.

A new letter, drafted by the ACLU and joined by 150 death penalty lawyers and law professors, registers the capital defense community’s outrage over the legal breakdown, which clearly violates federal and international law.

In the current crisis, Brig. Gen. John Baker, a decorated combat veteran and the second-highest ranking lawyer in the Marine Corps, was sentenced to 21 days of confinement by the presiding military judge in the prosecution of Abd Rahim Hussein Al-Nashiri, a suspect in the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole. Gen. Baker, in his role as the chief defense counsel for the Guantánamo military commissions, had granted a request by Al-Nashiri’s defense counsel to withdraw from the capital case because of an ethical conflict that is secret but is known to involve government monitoring of attorney-client communications. Three of Al-Nashiri’s long-term lawyers then withdrew — including his one attorney qualified to work on death penalty cases. The lawyer left on the case was a junior military lawyer.

The presiding military judge, Col. Vance Spath, was displeased — both that the lawyers had withdrawn and that Gen. Baker granted their dismissal without his permission. How Judge Spath expressed that displeasure is where things went horribly wrong. He found Gen. Baker had acted in contempt of the court, and ordered him to be confined for 21 days. (Gen. Baker spent 48 hours confined to his trailer at “Camp Justice” on the Guantánamo naval base before being released after he filed a federal appeal, which is still pending.) Spath then ordered the young military lawyer with no death penalty experience to proceed with Al-Nashiri’s defense on his own.

Just as you would not expect a recent medical school graduate to perform a complex and risky surgery, you would not assign a junior lawyer without capital experience a leading role in a capital case.

Capital defense is a highly complex and specialized area of law. Both in traditional federal prosecutions and in the unique provisions for Guantánamo, there must be at a minimum two lawyers representing a person facing the death penalty, and at least one lawyer must be “learned counsel,” with distinguished prior experience and knowledge in the area of capital trials. Just as you would not expect a recent medical school graduate to perform a complex and risky surgery, you would not assign a junior lawyer without capital experience a leading role in a capital case.

Richard Kammen, Al-Nashiri’s former long-term capital defense counsel, had been on the case for nine years. He had been practicing law for 46 years and had served as lead capital counsel in numerous cases. In contrast, Al-Nashiri’s remaining defense counsel, Navy Lt. Alaric Piette, is a 2012 law school graduate who meets none of the requirements for “learned counsel.” He was added to the existing Al-Nashiri defense team just a few months ago. He has no prior capital experience, and no prior criminal defense experience with homicide charges. He rightly told the court exactly that.

Judge Spath ordered the young lawyer to represent Al-Nashiri on his own in the scheduled proceedings. The judge’s departure from the rules, which require learned counsel at every part of a capital prosecution, is inexplicable. Even beyond the binding military commission rules, the American Bar Association’s guidelines for capital cases have long explained that the unique and complex labyrinth of capital trial preparation and investigation requires qualified death penalty counsel represent the defendant at every stage of the proceedings. There is no exception to this rule because the expertise is deemed necessary throughout. Nonetheless, Judge Spath suggested that the junior defense counsel should, alone, stand in the place of learned counsel and a team with deep knowledge of the voluminous issues that the case raises. The young lawyer resisted, repeating several times, that he was “not qualified” to represent Mr. Al-Nashiri in the capital pretrial matter without learned counsel.

Judge Spath dismissed the lawyer’s refusal to speak as a trial “strategy,” as if requesting qualified counsel for his client was somehow a personal choice, designed to disrupt the case. The young lawyer pointed out that it was neither his nor his client’s choice: “This cannot be trial strategy. It was not our choice." Judge Spath ordered him to continue anyway.

The judge’s unjustified and reprehensible attack on defense counsel, and his insistence that a major capital trial go forward without experienced counsel, is just the latest in a long string of outrages in the Guantánamo military tribunals. Listening devices in attorney-client meeting rooms have been installed, disguised as smoke detectors. The FBI has infiltrated and investigated defense teams. Privileged legal mail is seized. Sadly, the list goes on.

The tribunals have become a costly farce, inflicting incalculable damage to due process and justice. This farce must end.

Add a comment (13)
Read the Terms of Use

Dr. Joseph Goebbels

Due to the lastest developments at Guantánamo Bay they are planning a sequel to the movie "A Few Good Men". It's to be called "A Few Good Shysters".

Anonymous

You have a mistake in the first line. The commissions at Guantanamo were specifically set up to CONVICT the prisoners, not to try them.

StanH

Sad, but true!

Anonymous

The accurate technical terms for 21st Century America is "Kangaroo Court" and third-world style "Banana Republic.

That's where you start the judicial process with a guilty verdict, without an adversarial trial, then create a show-trial to make it appear legitimate.

The fatal flaw of adopting third-world practices is that there isn't a healthy risk of perjury for "accusers" and prosecutors. Allegations are adopted as truth without allowing the accused to confront evidence against them.

Anonymous

This is not 3rd world style but 1st world. Unfortunately 1st world Germany late 1930's and first half of the 1940's...

Anonymous

Do most Americans know that at least 86% of Gitmo detainees were never near a battlefield and had no evidence indicating guilt. Tribal chieftains essentially sold their own enemies and unpopular people to Coalition Forces for huge financial boundaries. This speaks volumes to how corrupt this justice system is. It also makes it very to simply frame innocent people for ulterior motives.

Dr. Joseph Goebbels

"You can't handle the truth!": Jack Nicholson as Colonel Jessup in A Few Good Men.

Anonymous

Judge Spath swore a supreme loyalty oath to follow and uphold the U.S. Constitution - a wartime charter - as a condition of holding authority.

Just because the Bush Administration violated Ronald Reagan's treaty banning cruel treatment and destroyed America's constitutional rule of law system, doesn't release Judge Spath from his Oath of Office.

The U.S. Constitution was never amended to legalize Kangaroo Courts - neither Bush nor Spath have that legal authority.

Mattes - Germay

That was all for Publicity, showing the own folk's that they so something top avange the 9/11.

Now they have drones.
It's the easy was, but not the right way, if you like top be the good Guy.

What's the different between the USA and North Korea or Russia?

If you like to be the good Guy, act like the good Guy! Play fair, even the others don't.

There is something terrible wrong, but saving Money does count more than saving Nature or children ... we all geht what we deserve and Money could Not save us.

Thats Not a threat, cause Karma ist a bitch.

Dan - NY

Good point, I understand.

Pages

Stay Informed