In this blog post, I will discuss and critically evaluate Death row: the lawyer who keeps losing | Capital punishment | The Guardian by David Rose.
The article discussed Kansas City defence attorney Frederick Duchardt, who became notorious in the American judicial system for his failure to defend his clients from execution at the hands of the State. Duchardt's frequently ambivalent and rushed approach to witness interviews and rapport building has led to individuals such as Wes Purkey and Lisa Montgomery being executed without the judge and jury being privy to vital information that could have prevented this, for example, evidence of frequent childhood sexual abuse or cognitive deficit.
Duchardt himself disagrees with the idea that his clients frequently being sentenced to death reflected his own performance as someone who was legally obliged to research all facets of the trial thoroughly. Rather, “If you’ve read the facts of these cases, you’ll know they were ugly, ugly.”
The article itself has an interesting dynamic regarding the efficacy of its sources, directly interviewing many involved in Duchardt's cases including the attorney himself. One such interviewee is Professor Sean O'Brien of the University of Missouri, a well-seasoned veteran Lawyer himself. O'Brien frequently contributes to the narrative of the article by rejecting and countering Duchardt's narrative throughout, remarking on the latter's multiple Affidavits by stating he had “switched sides against his client[s]".
"They get a lawyer more worried more about pleasing the court and the prosecutor than about fighting for the client."
I find this back-and-forth dynamic between not only O'Brien and Duchardt's narratives but Rose's overall experience researching these trials to be incredibly interesting. The basis of conflict lies in the lack of truth, and therefore it is hard to critically disparage an article that focuses so clearly on displaying all facets of a legal argument. However, regardless of the corruption of Duchardt, whom I believe to be more interested in pleasing the judges who sent him as legal counsel than defending those who may have cognitive deficits and therefore would be unfit for execution, Rose's bias is clearly shown through his inclusion of unnecessary personal details described in his interviews with Duchardt.
"I got the impression he wanted to be liked." States Rose, on meeting Duchardt. There is a personal element to his description of the Attorney which cannot be found in interviews from figures such as O'Brien and though I agree with scorn presented towards the figure, it is hard to describe this article as neutral in its intent. This can also be seen in body-language indicators: "he stiffened ... palpably defensive ...", his "Wispy hair" and "droopy moustache" making him appear almost cartoonishly set-up for incompetence from the beginning of the piece. Truthfully, this did impact me as a viewer as I found myself almost caricaturising him in my mind the more I grew a sense of disdain and disgust for his treatment of clients.
Death row defence is, in itself, inherently controversial. It is difficult to find sympathy for those who have taken the lives of or potentially tortured other human beings; we are, after all, an empathetic species. However, when faced with systemic corruption, which I believe this can be classed as (considering the frequency at which Missouri sentences inmates to death in comparison to neighbouring states), I consider myself split by my moral compass. Articles such as these, which push and pull at what can be considered a fair trial and emphasise evidence-based-research above all are integral to read as a student going into a world of net-based disinformation and governmental lies.
Comments