Breaking and associated brands will be offline for scheduled maintenance Saturday May 8 3 AM US EST to 12 PM EST. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Following are excerpts from the ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Counsel in Death Penalty Cases, cited in Wiggins v. Smith last June. The guidelines were adopted in 1989 and revised in 2003. Guideline 4.1. Defense Team and Supporting Services A. The Legal Representation Plan should provide for assembly of a defense team that will provide high quality legal representation. 1. The defense team should consist of no fewer than two [qualified] attorneys . . . an investigator, and a mitigation specialist. 2. The defense team should contain at least one member qualified by training and experience to screen individuals for the presence of mental or psychological disorders or impairments. B. The Legal Representation Plan should provide for counsel to receive the assistance of all expert, investigative, and other ancillary professional services reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide high quality legal representation at every stage of the proceedings. The Plan should specifically ensure provision of such services to private attorneys whose clients are financially unable to afford them. 1. Counsel should have the right to have such services provided by persons independent of the government. 2. Counsel should have the right to protect the confidentiality of communications with the persons providing such services to the same extent as would counsel paying such persons from private funds. Commentary Introduction. In a capital case reaffirming that fundamental fairness entitles indigent defendants to the “basic tools of an adequate defense,” the United States Supreme Court stated: “We recognized long ago that mere access to the courthouse doors does not by itself assure a proper functioning of the adversary process, and that a criminal trial is fundamentally unfair if the [prosecution] proceeds against an indigent defendant without making certain that he has access to the raw materials integral to the building of an effective defense” ( Ake v. Oklahoma). It is critically important, therefore, that each jurisdiction authorize sufficient funds to enable counsel in capital cases to conduct a thorough investigation for trial, sentencing, appeal, post-conviction and clemency, and to procure and effectively present the necessary expert witnesses and documentary evidence. The Team Approach to Capital Defense. National standards on defense services have consistently recognized that quality representation cannot be rendered unless assigned counsel have access to adequate supporting services, including “expert witnesses capable of testifying at trial and at other proceedings, personnel skilled in social work and related disciplines to provide assistance at pretrial release hearings and at sentencing, and trained investigators to interview witnesses and to assemble demonstrative evidence.” This need is particularly acute in death penalty cases. The prosecution commits vast resources to its effort to prove the defendant guilty of capital murder. The defense must both subject the prosecution’s evidence to searching scrutiny and build an affirmative case of its own. Yet investigating a homicide is uniquely complex and often involves evidence of many different types. Analyzing and interpreting such evidence is impossible without consulting experts�whether pathologists, serologists, microanalysts, DNA analysts, ballistics specialists, translators, or others. In particular, mental health experts are essential to defending capital cases. Neurological and psychiatric impairment, combined with a history of physical and sexual abuse, are common among persons convicted of violent offenses. Evidence concerning the defendant’s mental status is relevant to numerous issues that arise at various junctures during the proceedings, including competency to stand trial, sanity at the time of the offense, capacity to intend or premeditate death, ability to comprehend Miranda warnings, and competency to waive constitutional rights. The Constitution forbids the execution of persons with mental retardation, making this a necessary area of inquiry in every case. Further, the defendant’s psychological and social history and his emotional and mental health are often of vital importance to the jury’s decision at the punishment phase. Creating a competent and reliable mental health evaluation consistent with prevailing standards of practice is a time-consuming and expensive process. Counsel must compile extensive historical data, as well as obtaining a thorough physical and neurological examination. Diagnostic studies, neuropsychological testing, appropriate brain scans, blood tests or genetic studies, and consultation with additional mental health specialists may also be necessary. Counsel’s own observations of the client’s mental status, while necessary, can hardly be expected to be sufficient to detect the array of conditions (e.g., post-traumatic stress disorder, fetal alcohol syndrome, pesticide poisoning, lead poisoning, schizophrenia, mental retardation) that could be of critical importance. Accordingly, Subsection A(2) mandates that at least one member of the defense team (whether one of the four individuals constituting the smallest allowable team or an additional team member) be a person qualified by experience and training to screen for mental or psychological disorders or defects and recommend such further investigation of the subject as may seem appropriate. Although mental health issues are so ubiquitous in capital defense representation that the provision of resources in that area should be routine, it bears emphasis that every situation will also have its own unique needs. The demands of each case�and each stage of the same case�will differ. Jurisdictions must therefore construe this guideline broadly, keeping in mind the superior opportunity of defense counsel to determine what assistance is needed to provide high quality legal representation under the particular circumstances at hand and counsel’s need to explore the potential of a variety of possible theories. For example, it might well be appropriate for counsel to retain an expert familiar with the cultural context by which the defendant was shaped, or a professional researcher to track down elusive archival records. While resources are not unlimited, of course, jurisdictions should also be mindful that sufficient funding early in a case may well result in significant savings to the system as a whole.”

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.