Court Opinion

ID: 9576558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:25:59.521421+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:53.720751
License: Public Domain

Sears, Justice,
dissenting.
I fully concur with Presiding Justice Fletcher’s dissent. The official taking of a human life is the ultimate governmental exercise of control and power over individual liberty. If it is to be done, it must be done cautiously, dispassionately, soberly, and fairly. And fundamental fairness demands that a condemned prisoner have the benefit of competent counsel to articulate his constitutional claims and to navigate the procedural and substantive morass that is our habeas corpus law. If this were not so, all states but one that impose the death penalty would not require counsel in these cases. Nevertheless, the majority today joins that one state and requires a condemned man, without counsel, to bring his claims for relief in an arcane process that he cannot possibly understand in a court of law that (most likely) will not be able to understand his constitutional concerns. This is an outcome that no just government should countenance.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Benham and Presiding Justice Fletcher join in this dissent.