A fool for a client

By Buried Alive, March 2006 (Serving a life sentence for a non-violent drug conviction under the three Strikes Law, writer Buried Alive is an inmate at the California Correctional Center in Susanville and a regular contributor to Under Lock and Key)

Since the right to be represented by counsel is the cornerstone of the American criminal justice system, defendants are discouraged from exercising their right to represent themselves. With scarce judicial resources and bloated court dockets, all parties are professionally bound to keep the justice system operating smoothly. When a criminal defendant chooses to represent himself and upsets this delicate balance, he can expect to be treated like he has a fool for a client.

However, once a defendant becomes a convicted felon who determines to argue for a new trial, reduced sentence, or outright reversal, he must learn to navigate through the courts on his own. The right to be represented by counsel is replaced with a one-time review of the trial transcripts on appeal. Beyond this cursory examination, all courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, are forced to liberally construe poorly written petitions and appeals drafted primarily by uneducated prisoners. These petitioners, known as pro per litigants, have no choice but to represent themselves because they cannot afford to hire an attorney.

Maurice [name changed to protect the prisoner] is one such prisoner representing his fool for a client while incarcerated at the California Correctional Center in Susanville. A 30 year old African American, Maurice spends every available moment in the prison's library practicing law without a license or legal training.

Maurice is convicted of numerous counts of robber, burglary, and assault that occurred in March 2002. The court documents illustrate how Maurice and three others tricked marijuana dealers into relinquishing their illicit products and belongings under the guise of being arrested. Neither of the two separate incidents involved any violence. However, when one of the other men attempted to shake down a couple of Mexican nationals, a fight broke out when they resisted the suspicious detainment. The other man stabbed one of the Mexicans and an accomplice robbed another of his wallet.

All but Maurice were arrested a short distance from the crime scene. Murky facts and unreliable witness identifications made the case difficult to prosecute. Maurice doesn't deny being present, and believes he would have been exonerated if his friends, who cut deals for one and seven years, had told the truth.

"I didn't participate in any of these crimes. What they did was link me. It's like if you help someone rob a bank. You knew, you participated. I never participated in any of these crimes. Am I dumb for hanging around these dudes? Yeah," Maurice admitted, then added, "I got convicted of crimes I didn't commit."

The vast majority of prisoners don't file any type of appeal because they plead guilty. Whereas those who go to trial are responsible for the steady-stream of pro per pleadings filed in the nation's courts. In response to frequent claims of attorney incompetence, the courts have imposed very high standards of proof governing the issue.

Maurice asserts his trial attorney failed to meet the minimum requisites of effective representation. He points to a disagreement over money. "You only paid me $2,000, so only expect $2,000 worth of work," Maurice quoted his attorney in a petition for writ of habeas corpus currently pending in the California Supreme Court. "If that was the deal," Maurice says, "he should of never accepted the case."

Since defense attorneys require retainer fees of $10,000 or more, plus additional costs if the case goes to trial, it stands to reason $2,000 wouldn't suffice in a 14 count indictment which went before a jury. But in order to compel a higher court to upset a verdict, the petitioner has to articulate how the attorney's deficient performance, not a disagreement over money, affected the outcome.

"It's what he didn't do," Maurice explains. "He didn't conduct a pretrial investigation, he never hired an investigator, never requested a pretrial lineup, and simply failed in his duty in the compulsory process."

Moreover, Maurice accuses the Sonoma County Superior Court, the prosecuting attorney, and his attorney of working against him. "In this state, these so-called defense attorneys, judges and prosecutors are all on the same team," said Maurice, expressing a sentiment felt by many disgruntled inmates. "They condemned me before I even had my joke of an impartial and unfair trial by a fake jury of someone else's peers."

Despite these claims which are literally impossible to prove, Maurice doesn't claim to be a stranger to trouble. While he says fatherhood pulled him from the fast lane, this case has shattered his faith in the justice system.

"I had been in and out of trouble since I was 13. But this is my first time it ever got serious. Prior to this case, I didn't have any run-ins with the law in four years. I had my own apartment; I was working; taking care of my kids. When I heard there was a warrant for my arrest, I turned myself in knowing I didn't participate in the crimes. I did the right thing, and they still treated me like a criminal," lamented Maurice.

After being convicted, Maurice received nine years. When the state's highest court affirmed his conviction in 2005, Maurice realized he'd have to represent himself it he expected to have his conviction reversed.

Though state and federal authority mandate meaningful access to the courts shall be provided through a complete collection of law books, most of the libraries throughout the prison system are in horrible shape. Eventually a CD-ROM database will replace the bound volumes. In his short tenure as a jailhouse lawyer, Maurice can't believe he must litigate under these conditions.

"As convicts we only have access to these low budget law libraries that don't have adequate resources. It's not fair whatsoever. We probably have about one quarter of a real library," Maurice said, "and the help they provide is very inadequate."

In his post conviction sojourn for justice, Maurice is yet to find the mythical pool of talented jailhouse lawyers who voluntarily lend their expertise. "Pretty much you're left to learn and struggle through the process on your own. I have had to weed through the fake jailhouse lawyers who are only concerned with making a profit off you. It's very difficult to find someone who will truthfully guide me in the right direction as they recognize the struggle.

"Besides a law student, who do you know who studies the law extensively on a daily basis We're not prepared to fight against these trained professionals, and by common sense we need representation.'

As if involuntary pro per litigation weren't hard enough under the current conditions, the Republican Congress has for the second time in 10 years targeted federal habeas corpus for further limitations. When Congress enacted the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) in 1996, the statute had little effect on terrorism or capital punishment. Ten years later and few inmates have even a basic understanding of the AEDPA's complexities and unforgiving one year statute of limitations. The recent habeas reforms being considered, one of which is attached to the Patriot Act, would go even further than the AEDPA's Draconian limitations on pro per litigation. These inmates, many fighting life sentences, merely want a chance to have their claims heard on their merits.

"I just want to get the fair judgment I deserve, and get on with my life. I'm 30 years old now, and don't have the time to waste anymore. My kids are my concern," said Maurice. "This prison thing isn't for me. If I'm guilty of anything, it's keeping the wrong company."