Death in Georgia.

Remember in 2005 when a man named Brian Nichols went into an Atlanta courtroom for a hearing and killed the judge, the court reporter, a deputy sheriff and a federal agent before taking a woman hostage*? Three years on, his case is still stalled in the Georgia’s courts.

Paul L. Howard, Jr., the district attorney of Fulton County, announced that he would seek the death penalty against Nichols. The case appeared to be open-and-shut: the first two murders, of the Judge and the court reporter, took place in front of several witnesses, and Nichols confessed to all four of the killings in statements to police. But almost three years later the case has stalled, caught in a bitter dispute over funding for Nichols’s defense team, which has so far been paid about $1.2 million by the state of Georgia. The state agency responsible for indigent defense has run out of money, and other cases are at risk of being delayed or derailed. Jury selection in Nichols’s trial, which began more than a year ago, has not been, and may never be, completed. The prosecutor has petitioned, so far unsuccessfully, to have the trial judge removed from the case and to change the defense team. During a recent hearing, the judge, Hilton Fuller, implored members of the public to “write me an anonymous letter” with suggestions about how to bring the case to trial. Some Georgia legislators, furious about the delays, have advocated impeaching Judge Fuller.

The Nichols case illustrates a troubling paradox in death-penalty jurisprudence: the more heinous a crime—and the more incontrovertible the evidence of a defendant’s guilt—the greater the cost of the defense may be. Death-penalty trials require juries not only to determine whether the defendant is guilty but also to make other complex moral judgments—why a defendant committed a crime, whether he is likely to do so again, what punishment fits the crime. Defendants are entitled to often costly expert assistance, including the services of psychiatrists, as they prepare their cases. Yet spending large sums of public money on the defense of capital cases is politically incendiary, and in Georgia the consequences may be cataclysmic. According to Stephen B. Bright, the senior counsel for the Southern Center for Human Rights, in Atlanta, “We are just now starting to see the ripple effect of Nichols. The question now is whether the whole thing is going to come crashing down.”

*For some reason, I remember The Purpose Driven Life being part of this story. I’m not sure why.

Death in Georgia [The New Yorker].

G.D.

G.D.

Gene "G.D." Demby is the founder and editor of PostBourgie. In his day job, he blogs and reports on race and ethnicity for NPR's Code Switch team.
G.D.
  • Wrongshore

    The Purpose Driven Life:

    In March 2005, after allegedly killing four people–three in an Atlanta courthouse–Brian Nichols took Ashley Smith hostage in her apartment. For seven hours, Smith, a widowed single mom, talked to Nichols about her faith, her addiction to crystal meth, and the young daughter she was struggling to regain custody of. She also read to Nichols from Pastor Rick Warren’s best-selling book, “The Purpose-Driven Life.”

  • Thank you, Wrongshore. I knew it popped up in some trivial way.

  • LH

    I think it’s bass ackwards that there is little (if any?) compensation for the victims of such crimes or their families, but public dollars go toward paying the legal bills for defendants.

  • LH: The government should be in the business of compensating murder victims?

    (I’m sure a civil suit could be brought against the courts for negligence during Nichols’s rampage.)

    People sentenced to death deserve a vigorous defense, considering how often innocent people without means are later exonerated from their roles in capital murders. What’s odd about the Nichols thing is that he confessed and asked to be put to death.

  • LH

    GD: I think so, yes. This could be because where I’m from (UK), victims or their families are sometimes compensated. Outside of that, though, I do think there should be some compensation, especially if tax payers are burdened with the responsibility of paying for defending the indigent. I was actually surprised when I came to the States and learnt that wasn’t the case here.

  • quadmoniker

    LH: I can see how the government might be responsible in this case, since it was their responsibility to guard Nichols during his trip to the courthouse, but what would the legal basis be for the government generally compensating murder victims? What is the basis in the UK?

  • quadmoniker

    P.S.: For a really wonderful recounting of the case in which the Supreme Court ruled in the 1960s that the constitution provided the right to an attorney, read “Gideon’s Trumpet” by Anthony Lewis.

  • Steve

    The only way victims could get money is through a civil suit. It is VERY hard to win negligence cases against law enforcement officials. However, generally, because Nichols was in their custody at that exact time they had duty of care. Duty of Care issues vary by jurisdiction though, so I’m not sure what GA is.

    The main legal issue would be to establish that they had a duty to keep Nichol’s from hurting anybody. Once that is proven, the plaintiffs would have to prove that duty was breached, that breach CAUSED the deaths of the victims.

    They also would want to sue the employer’s of the law enforcement officials and not the officials themselves (they have no money). Generally, an employer can be sued for their employee’s negligence as long as it occurs during the scope of employment.

    So I mean they have a case, it’s a matter of proving Duty.