En Banc Sixth Circuit Upholds Death Penalty Conviction Where Counsel Lied About His Experience

Yesterday’s New York Times reported on a recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a death penalty conviction in a very deeply disturbing case.

James Earl Slaughter (really “James Leonard,” but Slaughter was the name used throughout the proceedings) was sentenced to death in 1983 for the stabbing death of a Louisville store owner. Mr. Slaughter’s attorney lied about his experience as a capital defense attorney (he stated he handled four prior death penalty cases when in fact this was his first), he did no investigation of the client’s background, and in fact could not even properly spell or pronounce his client’s name.

A U.S. District Court judge granted the writ. 186 F. Supp. 2d 755 (WD Ky, 2001), but the conviction was reinstated by a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit. Slaughter v. Parker, 450 F.3d 224 (CA 6, 2006).

The other day, an en banc panel of the Sixth Circuit voted 7-7 to declined to rehear the case. While condemining the representation that Mr. Slaughter received, the majority seems content to say that the favorable testimony which counsel did not offer would not have changed anyone’s mind because Mr. Slaughter had no compelling facts. What is particularly troubling about this assertion is the fact that a juror on the case filed an affidavit that she would have voted the other way had she known these facts. Unfortunately, juror affidavits about what they would have done are deemed less trustworthy than judicial or attorney speculation about what they would have done.