13 and in prison for life

[TheGimp]

All Locked Up

Did Joe Sullivan, sentenced to life at 13, have a fair trial?

Next week the Supreme Court will hear arguments, in Sullivan v. Florida, about whether sentencing a 13-year-old boy to prison without the possibility of parole violates the cruel-and–unusual-punishment clause of the Constitution. Joe Harris Sullivan is one of two teenagers that young currently doing life without parole for a nonhomicide offense in the United States. His lawyers are hoping that the court will extend its 2005 bar on executing criminals who committed crimes as juveniles to Sullivan's sentence.

Whatever the court decides, its ruling will be based on the premise that Sullivan received a fair trial. The adequacy of that proceeding isn't before the justices now. But a brief review of the trial record reveals a process so pathetic that it raises questions about whether Sullivan committed the crime in the first place. It also seems that the trial judge may not have intended to sentence Sullivan to life without parole. In the end, that judge, along with the prosecutor and defense lawyer, failed Sullivan so deeply that we have to wonder whether his sentence reflects a deep and basic failure of ordinary criminal justice.

Here's what we do know happened. One May morning in 1989, Sullivan, then 13, and two older teens, Nathan McCants, 17, and Michael Gulley, 15, burglarized a home in Pensacola, Fla. They left with jewelry and coins. Later that day, someone returned to the house and found a 72-year-old woman, threw a black slip over her head, made her lie on her bed, and raped her orally and vaginally—so brutally that she had to have corrective surgery.

The remaining facts are trickier. The woman testified at trial that her assailant was a "dark colored boy" who "had kinky hair and he was quite black and he was small." She never looked directly at him. However, she remembered her attacker saying something like, "If you can't identify me, I may not have to kill you." At trial, she was permitted to testify that she recognized Sullivan's voice, saying, it "could very well be" his.

The two older boys, who both received brief sentences for their roles in the crimes, also testified. Gulley claimed that Sullivan said he'd raped the woman; McCants claimed not to have gone back to the house the second time.

Sullivan denied raping the elderly woman, admitting only to the initial burglary. But he was tried as an adult on two counts of sexual battery and other related charges. The only physical evidence was a fingerprint lifted from a plaque in the bedroom, which could have been made during the burglary. The clothing and other evidence have been destroyed and couldn't be tested for DNA.

Sullivan's lawyer, Mack Plant, had a straightforward job: to investigate whether Sullivan was guilty of just the burglary or the rape as well. Plant also should have found out if Sullivan's friends got reduced sentences because they flipped on him, as well as what their criminal histories were.

Plant punted at every step, beginning with his failure to address whether Sullivan was even competent to stand trial. Social science research shows that most teens don't have the ability to determine whether to take a plea deal, much less make decisions about strategy for trial. But from the record, it appears Plant never had his client's reasoning and comprehension skills evaluated.

The lawyer declined to give an opening statement, which is like a batter not taking a swing. Plant also failed to cross-examine witnesses vigorously. He did not explore Gulley's and McCants' backgrounds to show they had a motive to lie. He never asked: "Did you get a deal here?" Michael Gulley had an extensive criminal history that included one sexual offense, according to court papers. A lawyer might have used this information to cast Gulley as a possible suspect instead of Sullivan. Plant did not. Instead, he focused on the fact that Gulley had to have his memory refreshed about the entire crime before testifying. This was a good point, but Plant blew through it. (Entire cross: a little more than a page.) And he never challenged the victim's identification of her assailant's voice as Sullivan's or asked her to listen to the other two boys' speech.

In his closing, Plant again said nothing about the self-serving nature of McCant's and Gulley's testimony. Here's his best line to the jury: "You know, I just don't know about this case." How true.

The trial whizzed by in eight hours. The jury took 35 minutes to convict. You could hardly blame them, based on the little they'd heard. Plant has since been suspended from the practice of law in Florida. The adequacy of his representation of Sullivan, however, was never properly raised on appeal.

[creatureofthenyte]

Well it sounds like the kid got convicted because he had a shitty lawyer.

Did his punishment fit the crime ?

Well that depends on whether or not he actually raped that woman.

Obviously the jury thinks so.

So, technically yes it does.

Do I think, based on the info in the story, that the kid could have gotten off if had a better lawyer ?

Yes, just look @ O.J. Simpson...no wait he's in jail now, so maybe that isn't a relevant example.

Do I think its cruel and unsual punishment, as cited by the clause in the U.S. Constitution ? No.

IMO, if you are old enough to do the crime, you are old enough to do the time.

Edited November 16, 2009 by creatureofthenyte

[Slogo]

Well it sounds like the kid got convicted because he had a shitty lawyer.

Did his punishment fit the crime ?

Well that depends on whether or not he actually raped that woman.

Obviously the jury thinks so.

So, technically yes it does.

Do I think, based on the info in the story, that the kid could have gotten off if had a better lawyer ?

Yes, just look @ O.J. Simpson...no wait he's in jail now, so maybe that isn't a relevant example.

Do I think its cruel and unsual punishment, as cited by the clause in the U.S. Constitution ? No.

IMO, if you are old enough to do the crime, you are old enough to do the time.

The lawyer doesn't have to be great but competency should certainly be a requirement

[Lillylu29]

thats the thing a lot of lawyers just dont care if they win or lose, they still get paid. expecialy court appointed, (they usualy never try).

[AstralCrux]

thats the thing a lot of lawyers just dont care if they win or lose, they still get paid. expecialy court appointed, (they usualy never try).

The smart ones try... So, they have a better win record. The more wins vs. losses, the more the lawyer can charge and the more desirable he is to firms.

So, this kid got screwed either way.

[candyman]

With the amount of crap kids are doing today would put my money on him being guilty...maybe even his friends too. It time to show people that there is no special treatment because of age no matter what the crime. He won't shape up in prison since prison is so cushy now...but it would get his ass off the streets. Even if he is only guilty of the robbery he should get some hard time...13 years old and doing that shit...SNAFU!

[Onyx]

It does seem excessive just when compared with what others get who actually have murdered people.

He deserves jail time for sure, but I'm wondering how they came up with that long of a sentence.

[eleven]

I think that life is a pretty extreme sentence for a 13 yr old kid. What he did was wrong but to be honest when i was 13 i used to steal from stores and such...however if there was a threat of life in prison i probably would not have stolen anything.

[Msterbeau]

Pretty much everything I've ever read says a 13 year old's brain still has a lot of development to go when it comes to right and wrong, and consequences of actions. I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished, but clearly they've had a fucked up childhood if their doing things like this and just as clearly, they're not an adult and shouldn't yet be held to adult standards.

[Homicidalheathen]

It does seem excessive just when compared with what others get who actually have murdered people.

He deserves jail time for sure, but I'm wondering how they came up with that long of a sentence.

ditto this.

[Rev.Reverence]

It does seem excessive just when compared with what others get who actually have murdered people.

He deserves jail time for sure, but I'm wondering how they came up with that long of a sentence.

Pretty much everything I've ever read says a 13 year old's brain still has a lot of development to go when it comes to right and wrong, and consequences of actions. I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished, but clearly they've had a fucked up childhood if their doing things like this and just as clearly, they're not an adult and shouldn't yet be held to adult standards.

..ya'll said it all...