ATLANTA, GA, – The Center's lawyers have asked the US Supreme Court to review the Georgia Supreme Court's 4-3 decision, upholding a trial judge's removal of Jamie Ryan Weis' lawyers - on motion by the district attorney - despite an ongoing attorney-client relationship of over a year. Read more.

The four justices that made up the majority rejected Weis' claim that he was denied his right to counsel and a speedy trial by Georgia's failure to provide funding for his legal representation - for his lawyers, investigators and expert witnesses - for all but six weeks of the three and a half years that his case was pending trial.

The four justices said that Weis should have accepted the trial judge’s removal of the lawyers representing him and the substitution of local public defenders even though the public defenders stated in motions to withdraw that they lacked the time, resources and expertise to “perform adequately in representing the Defendant, no matter how good our intentions or diligent our efforts.”

The Center's lawyers have petitoned the U. S. Supreme Court for review, pointing out that the overwhelming majority of courts have held that an ongoing attorney-client relationship cannot be interrupted except for the most compelling reasons, such as a conflict of interest, disability, or contempt of court. 

Nevertheless, the Georgia Supreme Court held in a subsequent case, Phan v. State, 2010 WL 2553467 (Ga. June 28, 2010), that trial judges are to consider replacing defense counsel whenever presented with a speedy trial issue.

In response, the Center’s lawyers have filed a supplemental brief arguing that the decision in Phan does “serious and unprecedented violence to the constitutional right to counsel” and provides another compelling reason for the Supreme Court to review the case because “no other court in the country makes a mockery of the right to counsel the way the Georgia Supreme Court has.”

The denial of counsel for such a long period of time has made a fair trial impossible because of lack of investigation during the critical pre-trial period and the death of Weis' mother who would have been a source of much information about her son and a witness at his trial.

Justice Hugh Thompson, joined by Chief Justice Carol Hunstein and Justice Robert Benhan, dissented, stating: “The failure to move this case forward is the direct result of the government’s unwillingness to meet its constitutional obligation to provide Weis with legal counsel and the funds necessary for a full investigation.”

A friend-of-the-court brief supporting the Petition for U.S. Supreme Court review was filed by former Georgia Chief Justice Norman S. Fletcher; Charles R. Morgan, who headed the Georgia Supreme Court's commission on indigent defense in the early 2000s; Emmet J. Bondurant, who served as the first chairman of the Public Defender Standards Council from 2005 to 2007; his successor, C. Wilson DuBose, who served until 2009; current Council members Donald F. Oliver and E. Wycliffe Orr Sr.; and Edward Hine Jr., who served on the council from 2003 to 2007.

Their brief points out that the Georgia legislature created a fund generated by fines and filing fees to support the defense of poor people accused of crimes, but has refused to appropriate all the funds raised by the fund for that purpose. "In the past four years, the fund has generated more than $23 million in court filing fees and fines that have not been appropriated to indigent defense," the brief states. "Georgia's indigent defense system has been crippled by this refusal to fund the system appropriately."

"Under current practices," the brief continues, "it is perfectly acceptable to deny funding for a capital defendant's representation for a substantial period of time, often years."

After the prosecution announced it was seeking the death penalty, two capital defense lawyers, Robert H. Citronberg and Thomas M. West, were assigned by the Georgia Public Defender Standards Council to defend Weis.  They filed and litigated motions, investigated the case, met with Weis, visited his home in West Virginia and were planning his defense when the Council announced in April 2007 that it had run out of funds for Weis' representation. 

At a hearing on November 26, 2007, without any notice to Weis or his two lawyers, the District Attorney who was seeking to have Weis executed moved to have his lawyers removed from representing him and replaced by two lawyers from the local public defender office.  The trial judge, Johnnie Caldwell, Jr., granted the motion without giving Weis or his lawyers, who had been caught by surprise, any opportunity to respond to it.  (Judge Caldwell has since resigned because of his sexual harassment of a woman attorney.)

The public defenders protested their appointment from the outset. They filed three motions to withdraw. One of the public defenders was not certified to handle capital cases and was “co-counsel, second chair and fill-in,” in over 400 cases, half of them felonies. The other public defender was administrator of a four-county public defender office and was handling 93 felony cases.

Besides blaming Weis for the delay, the Georgia Supreme Court majority also held there was no "breakdown" in the public defender system, even though the system ran completely out of funding for Weis and other capital cases.

"The State cannot shirk this responsibility because it is experiencing budgetary constraints. It still must fulfill its constitutional obligation to bring those accused of committing crimes to trial in a speedy manner," wrote Justice Thompson in his dissent. “The State should not be allowed to fully arm its prosecutors while it hamstrings the defense and blames defendant for any resultant delay.”

The Petition for Certiorari asks the Supreme Court to address the following questions:

      1.  Whether a court, on motion of the prosecutor, may remove appointed counsel who has developed an attorney-client relationship with an indigent defendant in circumstances in which a retained counsel could not be removed and, if so, whether any procedural protections apply?

      2.  Whether leaving a poor, mentally ill man facing the death penalty virtually defenseless – without counsel and without investigative and expert assistance – for over two years between arrest and trial because the state indigent defense agency could not pay for his representation constitutes a “systemic breakdown of the public defender system,” which should be weighed against the State for speedy trial purposes?

The Supreme Court will consider the case at its conference on September 27. It is expected to announce whether it will hear the case the following week.

The petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court is here.

The Amicus Brief filed by Norman S. Fletcher, Charles R. Morgan, Emmet J. Bondurant, C. Wilson Dubsoe, Donald Frederick Oliver, E. Wycliffe Orr, Sr. & Edward Hine, Jr. can be read here.

Read the State’s opposition to our Petition for a Writ of Certiorari and

Weis' Response to the State.

Read the Supplemental Brief Weis vs Georgia.

The Motion to Reconsider the Revised and Final Opinion of the Georgia Supreme Court can be read here. 

The revised and final majority opinion of the Georgia Supreme Court, as well as the dissent, can be read here.

The Motion on behalf of Jamie Weis to Reconsider the original opinion can be read here.

The original opinions of the Georgia Supreme Court can be read here. The majority opinion has since been withdrawn and replaced by the revised opinion above.

A video of oral argument at the Georgia Supreme Court is available here.

A description of the arguments at the Georgia Supreme Court, including the briefs to that Court, can be read here.

Media Coverage:

Slate:"Light Him Up Before the Jury Goes Home"

New York Times: Defendants Squeezed by Georgia’s Tight Budget

The National Law Journal: Georgia Murder Case Shines Spotlight on Nation's
Indigent Defense Systems