Saturday, January 20, 2007
Students in the Capital Punishment Clinic at The University of Texas School of Law traveled to Washington, D.C., this week to observe the clinic's death penalty cases being argued at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday.
University of Texas CrimProfs Jordan Steiker and Rob Owen, co-directors of UT's Capital Punishment Center, which houses the clinic, argued the cases. Steiker argued in Smith v. Texas. Owen argued in the consolidated cases of Brewer v. Quarterman and Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman. Clinic students assisted with the Supreme Court briefs and in the argument preparation. Their attendance at the arguments in Washington, D.C., was made possible by the law school's generous support.
Also attending the oral arguments were two advanced clinic students and a couple of other law students who assisted on the cases, several former clinic students, and two other law professors who teach the clinic including Maurie Levin, who served as a co-counsel with Jim Marcus. A number of students also attended the "moot" arguments that were conducted last week.
"We are thrilled that the students have been able to be a part of this process, and that they were able to attend the arguments in the Supreme Court after working on the cases and understanding the issues from the inside out," Steiker said. "The Law School's support of the clinic, and our litigation of these cases, has been 100 percent," he added. Levin agreed that the students' presence made the Supreme Court experience that much better. "It was great to see the students there and so engaged in the experience after their work on the cases in conjunction with the clinic," Levin said.
Steiker argued the Smith case at 10 a.m. E.S.T. on Wednesday with co-counsels Levin and Carol Steiker, a Harvard law professor. The Court was very active during Steiker's argument with Justice Antonin Scalia asking questions almost immediately after Steiker began speaking. An hour later, Owen argued the consolidated cases of Brewer and Abdul-Kabir. Steiker served as Owen's co-counsel.
The case, Smith v. Texas, involves a Dallas County inmate, LaRoyce Smith, who was sentenced to death in 1991. At Smith's trial, his defense counsel presented extensive mitigating evidence regarding Smith's intellectual impairments, learning disabilities, placement in special education, and difficult family background. After he was convicted, Smith argued in state court habeas proceedings that the sentencing instructions did not allow jurors to consider such evidence, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed in a 2004 decision (Smith v. Texas, 543 U.S. 37). On remand, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals nonetheless concluded that Smith's death sentence could stand. It is that decision that the U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing.
The Brewer and Abdul Kabir concern rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Similar to Smith, the cases address the question of whether the instructions given to inmate Brent Brewer's and inmate Jalil Abdul-Kabir's jury provided a sufficient vehicle for consideration of the mitigating evidence presented. The statutory scheme under which they were sentenced was ruled unconstitutional in 1989 and in 1991 the Texas Legislature amended the statute to fix the problem. The pre-1991 cases, however, continued to wind their way through the courts, and the Supreme Court issued three more decisions in Texas cases in an effort to enforce their original ruling. They were Penry II (2001); LaRoyce Smith (2004); and Tennard (2004). "The fact that the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Brewer and Abdul-Kabir cases is at least an indicator that the Supreme Court is still unhappy with the constricted view of the doctrine that has been applied by the Fifth Circuit," Owen said. Rest of Article. . . [Mark Godsey]