Burdine update

The retrial of Calvin Burdine continues to be a total pooch-screw, as two attorneys that Judge Joan Huffman has assigned to assist his court-appointed counsel have been rejected by both Burdine and his lawyer.

State District Judge Joan Huffman appointed Anthony Osso and Dick Wheelan to Burdine's defense team earlier this week, even though Burdine already has his own attorney and did not ask for the court-ordered assistance.

Danalynn Recer, Burdine's attorney, said during a hearing Thursday that the judge had "overreached" her authority.

Recer, who took the case for free after Huffman refused to appoint Burdine's longtime appellate attorney Robert McGlasson of Georgia, opposed the addition of Osso and Wheelan during a hearing Tuesday.

Recer asked Huffman her legal basis and motive for the appointments during another hearing Thursday, but the judge declined to answer. The judge would only say that her intention is to ensure that Burdine has an effective legal defense team.

Huffman said it's up to Recer whether she will seek the attorneys' help in the case.

"You can use them, don't use them -- they can sit at trial and not say a word," Huffman said of Osso and Wheelan. "But, they are here to assist you."

Recer submitted an affidavit to Huffman during Thursday's hearing in which Burdine complained about the appointments and stated that he considers Recer and McGlasson to be his attorneys.

Let's run this one down from the top:

1. Calvin Burdine's conviction for the 1983 slaying of his roommate/lover W.T. Wise is overthrown on appeal because his court-appointed attorney slept through much of the trial.


2. Judge Huffman refuses to allow Robert McGlasson, the attorney who handled all of Burdine's appeals, to be his counsel for the retrial. The reason for Huffman's refusal is that McGlasson had the balls to want to be paid for his representation. Burdine is indigent, so the state of Texas would be picking up McGlasson's tab. Instead, Huffman appoints Danalyn Recer, who had agreed to work pro bono. The ACLU appealed and a federal judge agreed to review Huffman's decision, but ultimately allowed her ruling to stand. An appeal is pending.


3. Huffman had originally set an October date for the retrial, which would have given Recer very little time to prepare. After much hue and cry and a rebuke from the editorial page of the Chron, Huffman moves the trial date back.


4. As this is a death penalty case, the law apparently requires two lawyers for an indigent defendant. Burdine wanted McGlasson, who is helping with the case anyway. Huffman picked two other attorneys for reasons unclear. Both attorneys will make between $400 and $700 per day or up to $30,000 for the case, with Huffman giving final approval to their bill.

Does this make any sense to you? It sure doesn't to me.

One of the secret problems of Texas criminal justice is the lack of a public defenders office in most counties. Judges appoint defense attorneys for defendants who need them. This often leads to a major conflict of interest. Judges are elected, so they don't want a reputation for cutting criminals loose. Attorneys who get these appointments have an incentive to please the judge. As a result, the accused often get a defnse that is indifferent, even nonexistant (as was the case with Burdine).

Unfortunately, there's no remedy for this that doesn't include money and the public will to do something about it. Neither of those is likely any time soon, so we get the spectacles like this one.

Posted by Charles Kuffner on November 22, 2002 to Crime and Punishment | TrackBack