Clemency, the Answer to Bad Defense Lawyers
The appeals case of Aaron Franklin, who is seeking a Ninth Circuit Court request for a Certificate of Appealability (COA) Case No. 11-55154, demonstrates the need for justice reform in California.
I believe justice reform can be accomplished through a new state clemency system designed to reduce the prison population safely. This new clemency system could also contain components that would greatly reduce the number of justice system abuses such as inadequate representation.
By offering the remedy of clemency, which could work quicker the Habeas corpus petition a 5-member county citizen panel could determine if a strong case of injustice or abuse has occurred. We could also weed out slick lawyers who care more about lining their own pockets then giving the best advice to their clients.
“On February 21, 2006, appellant (Aaron Franklin) and co-defendant Edward Kelsey committed three armed robberies and attempted to commit three additional armed robberies in Los Angeles, Torrance and Redondo Beach. Appellant and Kelsey used Kelsey's Lexus SUV, then appellant's BMW SUV to commit the robberies. The two pulled up to pedestrians, pointed a gun, and demanded money.”
On the surface, this dumb crime spree by Franklin who was 17-years-old at the time and his 19-year-old cousin Kelsey should not merit sympathy or special attention. However, because of the many times that I have heard of similar treatment where bad counsel was given to naïve clients, this case should receive a closer look and quick remedy, if not for Franklin, certainly for future Aaron Franklin type cases.
I was quite surprised to discover the two attorneys named in this appeal. One, Frank Williams Jr. who once represented Hall of Fame football star, Jim Brown through his troubles. The other, Christopher Darden, who I thought was used in the OJ Simpson case simply because he was black. Now it appears Darden too, knows how to use someone. In my opinion, their shenanigans if found in other cases should make them lose their ability to practice law anywhere but certainly the state of California.
Reading from portions of Mr. Franklin’s appeal request:
“…Here, as noted many times, Petitioner (Aaron Franklin) wanted to go to trial. Indeed, Mr. Zola and Mr. Pintal were relieved as counsel because they were not ready to try the case, and Mr. Williams was brought in because he professed his ability to the court, Petitioner and Petitioner’s family, that he was ready to try the case. And, Mr. Darden was later hired to move to revoke the plea agreement and try the case.”
“Yet, immediately after having been allowed to substitute in as counsel of record by convincing both the Petitioner, his family, and the court that he was prepared to try the case, Mr. Williams began pressuring Petitioner and his family to ‘take the deal.’ According to Petitioner, ‘Mr. Williams confidence went from wanting to go to trial to wanting me to take this deal of 13 years. He even went further to tell me that he can get me fire camp which is 35% of my time, and he will be able to do this based on my age and this being my first offense.’ There is simply no explanation for counsel’s quick turn around other than that he told Petitioner and the trial court what they wanted to hear to secure his position as counsel of record and obtain a payday.”
“As such, the advise he gave was neither reasoned nor informed, but rather was designed to be the path of least resistance and the easiest way for Mr. Williams to line his pockets – without regard to what was in the best interests of his client. Thus, in addition to constitutionally inadequate advice on whether or not to accept the plea bargain – the facts also demonstrated that Mr. Williams had a direct pecuniary conflict of interest with Petitioner.”
“…It is clear, on the face of the record, that Mr. Williams duped Petitioner, his family, and the trial court, into believing that he could come into the case at the very last minute and try the case. As Mr. Williams knew, and the trial court reaffirmed, he would not have been allowed to substitute in had he not professed to be able, willing and ready to proceed immediately to trial. The trial court indicated “that the only way Mr. Williams could substitute in was if he was ready to go to trial today. Mr. Williams indicated that he had only become involved with the case the day before, but had had some prior contact with Mr. Zola. Mr. Williams, on several occasions, expressed his readiness to proceed immediately with trial because, as he explained it, “[e]ssentially my response to that is Mr. Franklin’s defense doesn’t take a whole lot of investigation or preparation which is what I generally use time to prepare for. He based this on the fact that: “Essentially Mr. Franklin’s defense is going to be himself. He eschewed any need for ‘external evidence’ which would cause delay. Mr. Williams did indicated that if he had more time, he would look into retaining an expert to explore Mr. Franklin’s vulnerability. Williams also conceded that he did not yet know what the disposition of the co-defendant’s case was, or whether or not the co-defendant would be testifying. Despite the court’s inquiry as to his readiness and not knowing whether the co-defendant would testify, Mr. Williams again expressed his confidence in his ability to go forward and try the case. Mr. Williams went so far to assure the court that there was ‘no chance[]’ he would come back after the lunch hour and decide he needed a continuance.”
“…However, unbeknownst to the trial court, that was not the full the story: trial counsel were equally responsible for what later transpired.”
“Moreover, despite chiding Mr. Williams on direct appeal for failing to move to revoke the plea bargain, Mr. Darden himself failed to perform the very same act he claimed Mr. Williams was incompetent for failing to do, and for which he was explicitly retained to perform. Petitioner understood that ‘When being interviewed by my parents, Mr. Darden said that he was ready for a fight and he would attempt to revoke the plea agreement and file a writ to remove the judge from this case. He also told my parents he wrote about the Torrance courts in his book.’ With that agreement, Mr. Darden was retained. However, no motion to vacate the plea agreement was ever filed. Instead, Mr. Darden filed a ‘Sentencing Memorandum’ on August 10, 2007. Therein, Mr. Darden was clear that his ‘purpose in writing this memorandum is not to withdraw Aaron’s plea, but to instead plead for a 13 year sentence originally promised Aaron. Neither Mr. Williams nor Mr. Darden asked for a hearing to explain why petitioner failed to appear either on the 20th of February 2007 or March 12, 2007. Indeed, not even Mr. Williams appeared on February 20, 2007, as he promised the trial court he would do. As the trial judge Mark Arnold noted during sentencing, Petitioner could not, and did not, fail to appear on March 12, 2007 as promised by just his own doing. To be sure, he had some complicity in the events that occurred after February 16, 2007, but as the trial noted, he was just 17 years old and had poor guidance from some family.”
Simply put, if a new clemency system became law in California it could offer more assurance that defendants will be getting solid legal advice or clemency to any defendant who is a victim of the kind of injustice.
A naïve and in many cases scared young person will never know what hit them when they finally realize they have been had by a slick talking lawyer. Once the clemency board has determined injustice, the board would not only have power to release an inmate but make a strong recommendation to the California BAR to deal with attorneys who just don’t care about their jobs or responsibility as a lawyer.
According to the Attorney General’s Office, the State of California paroles more than ten thousand individuals a month. With that fact, some would argue that we do not need another tool to release prisoners. This might be true but we do need more justice tools that would ensure that we are not releasing an angrier person into society once they are released from prison.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 12:03PM