Posted on 08/06/2005 6:46:16 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
Despite his view that death penalty appeals are clogging the courts, Supreme Court nominee John Roberts provided free legal help to an inmate languishing on Florida's death row for two decades.
The 25 hours of legal assistance that Roberts reported to the Senate Judiciary Committee are minuscule compared with thousands of hours contributed by dozens of other attorneys in the case of John Ferguson, who was convicted in 1978 of killing eight people in one of the worst mass murders in Florida history.
But Roberts' pro bono, or free, work as a lawyer at Washington's Hogan & Hartson - ranging from assisting welfare clients and gay rights activists to advising Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in the 2000 presidential election dispute - suggests a man who kept an open mind when assisting clients, supporters say.
Responding this week to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, Roberts cited cases involving minority voting rights, noise pollution at the Grand Canyon and environmental protection of Glacier Bay, Alaska.
"Unlike a lot of conservative lawyers at the firm, I don't think John had a doctrinaire view about certain issues that would cause him to say, 'I shouldn't work on that,'" said Walter A. Smith, former head of Hogan's pro bono department who sought Roberts' help on major cases during the 1990s.
"I would have expected on these cases that he would turn them down. But none of them raised so serious a concern to him personally," Smith said.
Both Republicans and Democrats have been struggling to define the man who would replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a critical swing vote on affirmative action, the death penalty and abortion, in the critical weeks leading up to the Sept. 6 start of his confirmation hearings.
In recent weeks, Senate Democrats and liberal interest groups have focused on Roberts' record as a special assistant to Attorney General William French Smith in the Reagan administration, with memos suggesting he would aggressively move to limit civil rights, such as prisoner appeals.
The availability of federal court appeals, "particularly for state prisoners, goes far to making a mockery of the entire criminal justice system," Roberts wrote in a Nov. 12, 1981, memorandum, decrying the endless appeals process that "obscures the rare serious claim."
But as a Hogan attorney more than a decade later, Roberts didn't hesitate when colleagues asked him to provide advice involving appeals in the high-profile Florida case.
Ferguson, 56, was a triggerman in the killings of eight people in two separate, apparently drug-related shootings. His accomplices, Beauford J. White and Marvin Francois, have already been executed, but Ferguson's appeals have continued based on claims he is mentally ill.
The case is still pending in Florida courts.
Roberts offered insights to Ferguson's other attorneys on filing an effective appeal, said Steven Routh, a partner at Hogan who is still involved in the case. "He provided what we asked for" without objection, Routh said.
In the questionnaire, Roberts reports substantial amounts of time assisting the National Association of Attorneys General to prepare for arguments before the Supreme Court. He also has participated in moot court programs at Georgetown University and spoken to disadvantaged students about preparing for law school.
Roberts personally handled two pro bono cases. In one, he was appointed by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to represent a man convicted of Medicare fraud and also ordered to pay a $13,000 civil fine.
Roberts successfully argued in 1989 that Irwin Halper shouldn't be forced to pay a civil fine in addition to receiving a prison sentence, although the court reversed that decision eight years later.
In the other case, he devoted more than 200 hours representing about 1,000 welfare recipients in Washington, D.C., who lost their benefits during a city budget crisis. Roberts lost that 1995 case, in which he argued that the recipients were not properly informed of the benefit change.
Some said it was hard to draw any real conclusions from Roberts' pro bono record.
They noted that the both the American Bar Association and the District of Columbia Bar Association strongly urge private law firms to provide free assistance. Pro bono cases largely tend to involve more liberal causes, making it difficult for conservatives to fulfill their requirements if they're choosy.
"The fact he did it is a good thing. But I don't know if 25 hours on a death penalty case tells you anything," said Larry Spalding, an attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union in Florida.
Warning signs that Roberts is just another Souter?
Interesting.
Do they "strongly urge" or "require" pro-bono work?
What a waste of time and money.
Of course the guy is mentally ill.
More reason to conclude this episode.
Any lawyer who would prolong a murderer's miserable life is scum in my book!!
No, If the left can't defeat him, they'll enlist the right to do it for them. Coulter is right. Get Atilla the Hun and stuff him down their throats. Why put up with this crap when you have a majority.
That's what they want you to think.
Please read carefully - he was "consulted" on one of these matters, and provided what was obviously the minimum on the others. Law firms expect (well, require, if you want to stay there long) their attorneys to do a certain amount of pro-bono work, and the cases they get, naturally, tend to be liberal ones simply because of the milieu.
However, this is actually a good thing, because it prevents the left from trying to make him look like a raving rightwing nutcase. Since that hasn't worked, they're trying to undermine him with conservatives.
"Warning signs that Roberts is just another Souter?"
No
"Do they "strongly urge" or "require" pro-bono work?"
The Bar Association urges it. The firm may make it a requirement.
"they're trying to undermine him with conservatives."
It amazes me how many here are falling for it.
It's ironic that the libs are bashing him because he was once not conservative enough.
"Name one other profession that requires that daily you act against your personal beliefs."
It doesn't.
But you can defend a criminal without believing that the crime was acceptable. You simply believe in the Constitution, that everyone is entitled to a defense.
"Unlike a lot of conservative lawyers at the firm, I don't think John had a doctrinaire view about certain issues that would cause him to say, 'I shouldn't work on that,'" said Walter A. Smith, former head of Hogan's pro bono department who sought Roberts' help on major cases during the 1990s."I would have expected on these cases that he would turn them down. But none of them raised so serious a concern to him personally," Smith said.
Yes, that's right. He is not required to work on any case pro bono just because it happens to come along. He can pick and choose the cases to which he wants to donate his expertise.
Or libs using this story to drive a wedge in the conservative support since they cannot stop the nomination.
How about a guilty criminal?
"It's ironic that the libs are bashing him because he was once not conservative enough."
Is that true? I thought we were doing that. As for the libs, I read on another thread that Howard Dean was telling a group of Hispanics that Roberts was against voting rights. Where did he come up with that?
> If the left can't defeat him, they'll enlist
> the right to do it for them.
And if that doesn't work, Kennedy, Schumer and the
New York Times endorse him outright - kiss of death.
Let the process roll forward at a deliberate pace.
Look at the record. Dissect the Legacy Media reports
carefully, because they are 99% spin.
"How about a guilty criminal?"
I explained that already. Guilty or not, an attorney is simply helping to carry out the requirements of the Constitution. If there wasn't an attorney willing to serve, we wouldn't be able to convict the defendant at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.