Death row Brit Linda Carty loses latest appeal

(News 10 09 2009) Death row Brit loses latest appeal. In researching something about Linda Carty’ case it has served to “enlighten” me about US Culture in how the US Authorities and some legal Professionals represent their US Citizens – I say US Citizens because seemingly it was not known initially that Linda Carty was British having access to representations outside of the US. Given a denied appeal while unhappiness exists surrounding the legal case which convicted Carty one can only assume that the scales of Justice lay on the side of protecting reputations rather than a “life” which hangs in the balance and having no further appeals once that life has ended, thus closing the door for good. There would be little doubt that if Carty had been an American sentenced to death in another Country that the US Authorities would be crawling all over that Country but where does all of this leave a British PM?.  

The big question is - “Are Ordinary American Citizens happy with this case since after all it is their culture and one to which they themselves are subject by their own legal system and professionals?”. Of course being an observer is far different than having “hands-on” experience in such matters but unfortunately it’s too late to complain through future learning.

If an American be in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 />Britain facing charges of murder what would they expect – A “fairer” justice case in not being in their own Country or justice as to their own Country?. Its all about STANDARDS!.

 

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Linda Carty: born British on the Caribbean island of St Kitts

00 00 1982 Carty emigrated to America. 00 00 198? Carty works undercover for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) – enlisted by Charlie Mathis (DEA).

00 00 2001 Linda Carty arrested [ 25-year-old Joana Rodriguez murdered ]

00 02 2002 Conviction followed by an appeal. Sentenced to death – alleged part in the kidnap and murder of a young woman. Linda's attorney - Jerry Guerinot(State appointed)/ Wendi Akins. Prosecutor: Craig Goodhart  Houston District Attorney's office

26 07 2004 British lawyers believe her conviction is unsafe and are mounting an appeal.

00 10 2005 Charlie Mathis (DEA) swore an affidavit for Carty's appeal lawyers from Baker Botts, saying: 'I never spoke prior to or during the trial to Linda's attorneys, Jerry Guerinot or [his junior counsel] Wendi Akins about what I was going to testify about. Guerinot was asked whether HE or his colleagues had ever talked to Mathis (DEA) before the trial to which Guerinot replies instantly: 'Talked to him, yes.'.

 

Guerinot applied to the court for funds to go to St Kitts before Carty's trial, neither he nor his staff made the trip. The fact he made that request means he must have known she was entitled to British citizenship, and hence to the support she is getting only now from the Foreign Office. A British Foreign Office spokesman said “'The first we knew she was British was after she was sentenced to death,' Asked about these omissions, Guerinot blusters. 'Did I go to St Kitts? No. Why would I go there? She ain't from there. She was born, she may have been from there at one point, [but] she's an American citizen. This stuff about calling the British consulate and all is the biggest bunch of bunk I've ever seen.'. The Texas department of criminal justice has to record the citizenship of every new inmate. When it was discovered that Carty was a British citizen, Stafford Smith took on her case and informed the British consulate.

 

Guerinot never spoke to her common-law husband, Jose Corona. This failure meant Guerinot never asked him in court what he thought about Linda Carty. Had he done so, Corona's own affidavit states, 'I would have testified that Linda did not deserve the death penalty and that I do not believe that she is an aggressive person or a threat to society. The second consequence of this failure was more serious. Under Texan law, the 'spousal privilege' means a common-law husband cannot be obliged to testify against their partner. Corona's affidavit says: 'I did not want to get involved in the trial or to testify against Linda, but when the prosecutor's office called me, I thought I had no other choice. Neither Jerry Guerinot nor Wendi Akins talked to me before I testified. It was never explained to me that there is a marital privilege and under that privilege I had the right to refuse to testify. Had Guerinot informed him, Corona says, he would never have given evidence, and the state would have lost a crucial plank of its case. When interviewed Guerinot, he claims his staff did speak to Corona before the trial: 'Talked to him. Absolutely,' he says. This is yet another mistake. In his own affidavit sworn last year, Guerinot states: 'In my representation of Linda, I did not contact her husband Jose Corona prior to trial. I assumed my investigator John Castillo would speak to him. In reviewing the file, I now see that my investigator never spoke to Corona.'

Extracts from http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,,2218841,00.html

 

She and Guerinot both agree that before the hearing started, they had spoken just once, for less than an hour - hardly a basis for preparing an adequate defence.

 

Carty has always denied any involvement. Its stated that Three men had broken into Rodriguez's apartment abducting her and her child whereas TWO eyewitnesses testified that they saw four men enter Rodriguez's apartment. British lawyer Clive Stafford Smith has taken up Carty’ case.

 

Her original state-appointed attorney, Jerry Guerinot, has 21 former clients on death row - more than any other lawyer in the entire country. The state prosecutors who sought her conviction were the same lawyers she had been working alongside at the DEA for the past 20 years.

Below : http://www.reprieve.org.uk/2009_09_02lindacartyfifthcircuitappeal

Despite the overwhelming failures of Linda’s legal-aid trial lawyer, the court has denied a certificate of appealability (COA) for most of Linda’s claims on her lack of effective representation. The court refuses to consider key evidence showing that Linda's notoriously incompetent defence lawyer Jerry Guerinot:

·                                 Failed to spot obvious flaws and inconsistencies in the prosecution case;

·                                 Failed to interview witnesses;

·                                 Failed to present evidence on her lack of future dangerousness; and

·                                 Failed to inform Linda of her right to consular assistance.

Shockingly, the court holds that these errors should not even be heard.

The court also refused to hear Linda's argument that her right to consular assistance was violated by the state of Texas.

 

No one suggested Carty had been at the apartment, while Chris Robinson, a career criminal with an ugly record, admitted he had helped put Rodriguez in the boot. However, the state dropped capital murder charges against him and, after agreeing to testify against Carty, he pleaded guilty to lesser crimes, for which he was jailed for 25 years. Three of his associates had done similar deals. 'We will not apologise now or in the future for bringing these witnesses,' Goodhart told the jury at Carty's trial in February 2002. 'I brought you an armed robber, a dope dealer, a drive-by shooter, [and] another armed robber, a dope head without a doubt.' But in Goodhart's account, the witnesses' very criminality made them more credible.

 

According to Guerinot, 'the only time she finally talked to us we were in trial, and we had to bribe her with candy: a Mr Goodbar chocolate'. Guerinot insists this is true. But Carty says his claim is 'outlandish', because she has a severe chocolate allergy: 'If I ate chocolate, I would go into anaphylactic shutdown.'. Reprieve's investigators have obtained a letter from her childhood physician in St Kitts, Dr Macmilla Hodge, that confirms Carty had severe allergies.

Meanwhile, Baker Botts's investigators - the firm, says Michael Goldberg, has spent the equivalent of well over $1m on her case to date, amassing a small mountain of paper - claim to have found evidence that Guerinot's performances in other capital murders have been less than impressive. Carty's federal petition cites numerous examples of poor work by Guerinot in other capital murders, which reveal, it claims, a 'pattern'. For example, it is undisputed that he did not meet with Carty for three months after his appointment. The same thing happened when he represented Willie Marcel Shannon, condemned in 1996 for shooting a man in a carjacking. Guerinot called no witnesses in the trial's punishment phase at all, while a statement by Shannon says: 'For the first three months after my arrest, I did not know who my lawyer was. This was because Mr Guerinot would come to the holding cell looking for a "Willie Swanson" and then leave again. Finally, one day when I was the only one left in the cell, he discovered he had the wrong name and that he was representing me.'