Convicted Philadelphia abortion doctor has reached an agreement with prosecutors to avoid the death penalty: he has waived his right to appeal in exchange for a sentence of life without parole. I have no problem with the conviction of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 72, who performed late abortions in violation of state law under the most gruesome and horrific conditions. However, the use of the threat of the death penalty to waive appeal is a serious concern for civil libertarians.
Gosnell was convicted Monday of first-degree murder after a jury found that he routinely performed illegal abortions past Pennsylvania’s 24-week limit. The testimony in the trial was deeply disturbing with witnesses recounting how Gosnell would “snip” the spines of babies who were seen moving, whimpering or breathing. In one case, Gosnell joked that the baby was so big he could walk to the bus on his own legs.
The case has filled many with disgust and rage. However, the agreement is a serious concern if prosecutors can negate the appellate process and review by threatening to seek the death penalty. Such a waiver can also occur in exchange for a reduction in recommended years of incarceration. There is already tremendous pressure on defendants to plead guilty in our system. Prosecutors now routinely stack counts to allow obscenely long sentences to force such plea bargains. Now, this technique could also be used to cut off any appeal.
Do you feel such waivers should be allowed by the courts?
Source: SF Gate
Yes, there needs to be a greater gap between the similarities between poker and criminal jurisprudence.
AP: “A change Is Gonna’ Come”. I used to embrace that expression with joy, now it’s just kind of scary.
LOL, I’ll work on changing ‘shuffle’ to ‘boogie’ though; thanks for the Al Green and optimism. I was actually thinking of having a rum and coke with breakfast and putting on some rock&roll- I compromised and had milk and then went outside, it’s a beautiful day outside (It’s about time too!) here.
It just pi**es me off that I will shuffle off to my grave watching my society devolve into the new feudalism with a big side order of the cultural dark ages. Bah, humbug.
LOL, It’s still my morning, maybe I just need more coffee. -lottakatz
========
What?????!!!! Regarding “I will shuffle”: Change that “will” to “might” if you must… and don’t even think about shuffling anywhere… Grab another cup of coffee and have a little Al Green with it. (Sam Cooke’s version might be the best, but this one’s nice, too.)
http://youtu.be/3Nua5klb4Os
(Sorry to hear that you weren’t “well” last week.)
Darren: ….”The Washington Supreme Court ruled this was unconstitutional because it did not allow a defendant “to have his day in court” if he / she wished to avoid the death penalty at any cost. And that it was inherently coercive.”
*****
Right. Right, right, right. Alleged wrongdoers are punished for wanting a trial and punished for wanting appeals. Prosecutors are out of control and are allowed unconscionable discretion in loading on charges and conducting ‘throw it out there and see what sticks’ prosecutions.
And folks better start getting used to the Dr. Gosnells of the world; in many states he and his philosophical descendants are going to become the face of abortion because they’re going to be the only alternative poor women have if an abortion is wanted. Sh*t, I remember the archetypal Dr. Gosnell being one of the reasons safe became legal and the government subsidized it pre-Hyde Amendment days.
It just pi**es me off that I will shuffle off to my grave watching my society devolve into the new feudalism with a big side order of the cultural dark ages. Bah, humbug.
LOL, It’s still my morning, maybe I just need more coffee.
—————–
—————–
BTW- I was not well late last week/over the weekend and didn’t post but I did read the blawg and this last weekend hit it out of the ballpark with universally outstanding guest postings. Amazing job by all. Excellent work.
Darren,
This goes on all the time. I have no idea how many cases I’ve seen which have been overcharged just to force a plea. As far as appeals, one of the things they always put into the plea agreement is a condition that it will not be appealed. The judges in such cases always question the defendant if they have been threatened, coerced or promised anything as a condition of the plea. The defendant has no choice but to say it is of their own free will.
I am aware of several appeals on the grounds you cite, but never have seen a successful one.
I believe such a demand by the prosecutor is unconstitutional.
I don’t have the citation immediately available (running low on time here) but Washington’s former statute considering the death penalty proscribed that a person who plead guilty to Aggravated First Degree Murder would not receive the death penalty but someone who went to trial could face such a penalty. The Washington Supreme Court ruled this was unconstitutional because it did not allow a defendant “to have his day in court” if he / she wished to avoid the death penalty at any cost. And that it was inherently coercive. The statute was then amended.
The prosecutor should have just let this go its normal course. The guy was going to die in prison anyway. The prosecutor now risks an appeal on the grounds the defendant was coerced (I guess) into waiving his appeal right under the duress of the death penalty. Not the way I would have gone about it.
I agree that the waivers circumvent (in spirit) the purpose of allowing defendants to appeal and thus, have their conviction reviewed.
Ended so many lives as though there was nobility in his work, then clings to his own even so late in life.
Fail.
The guy is over weight and 72 years old. He would not live long enough to receive the death penalty. He wont live long enough to outlive life in prison. When he dies and goes to meet his maker it better not be on a Wednesday because that is when Saint Peter plays golf and has a stand-in at the Pearly Gates. It wont be Bill Gates and will probably some kid with a razor blade. This guy is probably not gonna make it to Limbo much less Heaven. Limbo is a suburb of Saint Louis called Florissant and is on the planning map to be included in Cardinal Nation on the West Bank.
Spot on, Terminator.
“there can be too many reasons, many initially unknown” Well, Balanced, that is the whole idea behind negotiations. You take what you know, assess the risk of the unknown, and make a decision. No one forced this guy to take the deal, he had counsel, and it is obvious that he thought it was in his best interest to take the deal.
Generally the bargaining process between prosecution and accused is reasonable, but giving up the right to appeal seems fundamentally wrong because there can be too many reasons, many initially unknown, that could prove the basis for a successful appeal; not including bad faith conduct by the prosecution which presumably would negate any such agreement.
If you have a problem with this, you have a problem with plea bargaining in general. Would you feel better if this deal had been done prior to a jury trial? I get the feeling that Gosnell just wouldn’t listen to his attorneys and it took the guilty verdict to jar him to reality. This eliminates years of potential death penalty litigation, closes the case for the public and the victims, and now life can go on with this monster safely locked down.
Theoretically, I don’t have a problem with plea bargains.
The problem comes when the state has disproportionate power in the bargaining process, which seems to be the case these days. So, I’d like to see less vague and overbroad criminal laws, especially federal, to keep prosecutors from stacking charges for essentially the same crime. Decriminalization of marijuana would also be a good thing.
As a matter of general principal, I agree. However, in assessing the prosecution “threat” and its probable impact, why not consider the pertinent facts of this case?
Mr. Turley observes,
Dr. Gosnell is seventy-two years old. Considering the likelihood of lengthy and obviously expensive multiple appeals of a conviction absent waiver of appellate rights, how big a “threat” would the death penalty have been for Dr. Gosnell? It strikes me that he would die in jail in any event, perhaps more painfully of natural causes and no sooner than through appeal-delayed lethal injection.
“Good cases” do sometimes further bad law. I wonder, however, whether that is even a factor here.
I don’t believe that taking a human life is right under any circumstances including death penalty. So, in my opinion, permanent incarceration with the right to appeal is right and proper.
Almost all of today’s “justice” is about coercive tactics. Plead guilty and we’ll give you probation rather than imprisonment. Plead guilty to a lesser charge and you will be given a term in jail rather than a longer term in prison. Agree to waive your right to appeal and not be put to death. Become the State’s witness and get immunity from your crimes.
Today’s “justice” system is not about justice. I wrote this poem about a real case:
Justice
He was an big, big man in town, you see.
He rubbed his shoulders with the leaders there.
He came to be involved within a crime.
He lied, accusing someone he had said he hated.
He had his friend, the prosecutor
Bring charges against this innocent.
The accusation that he made was false
That accusation was believed by most.
The case resolved, the charge dismissed,
The judge who was his friend, he ruled
That there should be a gag decree
So no one knows that it was false.
The DA is immune from any suit.
The system worked, you see, and there was
Justice.
This monster would very possibly still be operating if he didn’t run afoul of the DEA for prescribing oxycontin like prozac. This house of horrors was discovered as a result of that. Since I don’t believe in the death penalty my answer is “no.” But there is my dark side that says if he were executed, it should be by snipping his spine. Mea maxima culpa.
“Do you feel such waivers should be allowed by the courts?”
No.
I think it is fine. It is a negotiation, plain and simple. You can take your chance and get all your rights available under the law or you can waive some of your rights and the state will waive some of their rights.
In fact, this is one of the only reasons I find that is a positive about the death penalty. The Colorado shooter has offered to serve life without parole if the state would waive the death penalty. Now, in that case, the state was stupid and did not take it but without the death penalty, that offer would have never been made. The death penalty is constitutional, like it or not, and it is a great bargaining chip for the state (aka the taxpayers).
I think it’s coercion….. Period….
In a number of states, there are limits on defense counsel even to bring such an offer to a client.