US v. Council: Council robbed a bank in South Carolina, during which he shot and killed a teller and a manager. He was charged with bank robbery resulting in death and using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence causing death. He was convicted at trial and sentenced to death.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Council’s convictions and sentence. His primary argument on appeal revolved around how issues of his competency had been dealt with by the district court. While not arguing against “the district court’s bottom-line finding that he was competent to proceed,” he argued that the district court should not have deferred to the representations of his counsel (based on their retained experts) as to his competency. While the district court raised the issue “on its own initiative several times,” Council’s counsel “vigorously opposed any court-ordered examination . . . because it could place information in the government’s hands that could increase the risk of a death sentence.” Ultimately, the court conclude that even if it agreed “that obtaining an independent evaluation that results in the filing of a detailed report is generally preferable to relying on a private evaluation by defense-chosen experts – we cannot say the district court exceeded its discretion in proceeding as it did here.” The court also rejected Council’s arguments regarding jury selection, both that the district court should have asked more nuanced questions about racial bias and that the Government’s violated Batson, holding that the Batson challenge had been “affirmatively waived” by trial counsel.
No comments:
Post a Comment