Defendants must live (or die) with the choices they make

Defendants must live (or die) with the choices they make

We’ve certainly seen any number of instances in which it has been shown that a criminal defendant’s decision to represent himself was a bad strategic move.

But the Constitution gives a defendant that right, and even if all logic suggests that the defendant should have a lawyer, when push comes to shove, it’s the defendant’s life or freedom on the line, and the defendant gets the last word.

And so it was in the case of John Allen Muhammad, mastermind of the 2002 sniper attacks in the Washington, D.C., area that left 10 dead.

Muhammad had the help of court appointed lawyers as he prepared for his trial, and they were successful in winning him a change of venue for his trial, to Virginia Beach from northern Virginia, which was terrorized by the shooting spree. But as the trial approached, Muhammad invoked his right to represent himself. Circuit Judge LeRoy F. Millette Jr. questioned Muhammad and gave him every opportunity to reconsider. But Muhammad was adamant, and Millette granted his request. Muhammad promptly fired his lawyers, although they remained in court ready to assist if asked.

Muhammad apparently had what he thought was a winning, if unconventional, strategy of using his ability to address the court as both defendant and advocate to win the jury’s sympathy.

Unfortunately for him, the evidence was overwhelming, and he lacked the skill that an experienced attorney might have been able to use to chip away at the prosecution’s case.

He was convicted and sentenced to death for the slaying of Dean Meyers, who was shot at a Manassas gas station during a three-week killing spree in October 2002 in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia.

Looking for a second chance

Now Muhammad has lawyers again, and they’re claiming that his death penalty should be vacated because the judge should not have allowed him to represent himself. Let’s imagine Judge Millette had forced Muhammad to accept representation. What would have happened then? Because the case against Muhammad was solid, he almost certainly would have been convicted. And, then, an attorney would have popped up to claim that the conviction should be set aside because Muhammad had not been allowed to defend himself.

Our judicial system presumes a defendant is innocent until proven guilty, and more than any other system in the world it protects the right of a defendant to a fair trial. But allowing the defendant to game the system in a way that would give him a second bite of the apple wouldn’t be fair to the state, which is representing the people at large and seeking justice for the victims.

Thus far, Muhammad has failed in his appeals and his execution date has been set for Nov. 10. That’s a Tuesday rather than a Monday, and the day was chosen by the appeals court judge in yet another example of fairness. It provides Muhammad’s lawyer with a regular working day before the execution, making it easier to file last minute appeals.

Muhammad is being given far more consideration than he or his young accomplice, Lee Boyd Malvo, gave any of their victims. It’s been nearly seven years since Muhammad and Malvo were arrested; justice has been delayed long enough.