Among the Lowest of the Dead: : The Culture on Death Row

Rating:
Summary: Clarifications on Olive, Nolas, McClain and Rogers case:
Review: Both David Von Drehle and Michael Mello very well describe what life is like for those doing death sentenced persons' representation (Mello in "Death Work"), particularly at the old CCR. However there is more that Mr. Von Drehle and Mr. Mello didn't reveal in their books and Mello's companion book "Dead Wrong":

After Mark Olive voluntarily resigned from CCR about March 1988, Billy H. Nolas became the next Chief Litigator. It is extremely odd that Michael Mello doesn't mention his name nor Martin "Marty" McClain's names in the book. For a vast variety of reasons he should have. One can only interpret Mello's non-inclusion of their names and histories because Mello is a Holdman cheerleader.

Nolas was and is an excellent litigator like Olive was and is. Nolas was the Chief Litigator for about the last two years of Gov. Martinez "regime", which was the most difficult time in CCR history (during my employment there) with Martinez signing death warrants as if he was at a Republican Party event signing autographs.

Nolas sadly resigned at the end of 1990, when Martinez had been defeated by former U.S. Senator Lawton Chiles and former U.S. House of Representatives member Buddy MacKay.

Nolas was completely drained from the years he endured and litigated while at CCR, both due to the hugh case load and due to the internecine warfare within the agency. McClain and his faction within CCR basically did their best to cause Nolas to leave -- eventually they were successful -- and THAT is when clients's cases began to suffer.

McClain can be an excellent litigator, however his strategic decisions in various cases is a different matter. When Mello writes on page 245 of the hardcover version of "Dead Wrong" regarding CCR, "Look beneath the surface of CCR's 'success rates', however, and you'll find an artifice typical of hack public defender officers. CCR has in the past farmed out the hardest cases to outside lawyers (by finding that it has a 'conflict of interest')".

As the penultimate example of McClain alleging a "conflict of interest" [and I can only assume with the consent of the director of CCR at the time, Michael Minerva] is the client Jerry Layne Rogers, Sr. -- a clearly wrongfully convicted innocent man -- in Mr. Rogers's case there were 80 boxes of documents, from court files, prosecutor and law enforcement files, trial and evidentiary hearing transcripts, etc. Mr. Rogers's case was the largest and most complicated that CCR has ever represented.

The second largest and most complicated was that of Mr. Gerald Stano, whose lead attorney during most of the development of his case was Olive.

McClain simply didn't want to have such a complicated case as a CCR case, so McClain, in my considered insider opinion as Mr. Roger's only investigator from 1989 until my involuntary departure in 1992, alleged in a misrepresentation to the Florida Supreme Court (FSC) that he had a "conflict of interest" with Mr. Rogers -- while Mr. Rogers's case was pending at the FSC.

As a result, Mr. Rogers had no counsel for an extended period of time until the Washington, D.C. law firm Covington and Burling became his pro bono counsel in 1995. The result was an unanimous FSC 26 page opinion ordering a new trial in Mr. Rogers's case due primarily to prosecutorial misconduct, in particular Brady v. Maryland violations.

To read the opinion, go to www.flcourts.org, then to Opinions, then to the year 2001, then toward the bottom on February 15, 2001, one will find the FSC opinion.

Oral arguments in the Rogers case at the 5th District Court of Appeal in Volusia County was held on April 6, 2004 -- the 5th DCA in early May 2004 voted three to zero against Mr. Rogers -- thus the next court of appeal is the Florida Supreme Court.

Two other cases in particular McClain's strategic decisions may very well cost the clients their lives: Peter Ventura and Roy Swafford. More on these two cases another time, except to note that in both cases the FSC decided 4 - 3 against Mr. Ventura and Mr. Swafford in their most recent FSC cases.

Rating:
Summary: Re: Roy Swafford and Peter Ventura cases:
Review: For those interested in reading the four to three vote Florida Supreme Court opinions regarding two more death sentenced persons whose innocence is an authentic issue, please go to www.flcourts.org, then go to "Opinions and Rules", then chose the correct year and scroll down to the following two cases:
Roy Swafford: April 18, 2002 Case No. 92.173

Peter Ventura: May 24, 2001 Case No. 93.839

These two cases are findable under "Court Orders: Case Disposition Orders" and "Briefs in Other Cases" sections of the "Press Page":

Roy Swafford: March 26, 2004 Case Nos. 03.931 and 03.1153

Rating:
Summary: Perfect for those seeking to understand the death penalty
Review: This book is a good read. I found it to be fascinating in that the stories related by the author give the reader a first hand look at how the death penalty system developed and operates in Florida. Von Drehle is a journalist and gives ample space to the individuals who have been key players on both sides of the issue. This book is perfect for those seeking to understand the recent history and the pragmatic realities of our use of the death penalty in the United States.

Abraham J. Bonowitz, Director, Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, or 800-973-6548