Next week the Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments about two cases in which juveniles were sentenced to life without parole for non-homicides. The most disturbing thing about these cases that is that both sentences seem egregiously unjust even before considering the age of the defendants. One of the convicted teenagers received the draconian sentence even though he had been fairly convicted only of one robbery and a parole violation, a remarkably disproportionate sentence.
The case of Joe Sullivan, sentenced to life without parole at 13, is even more appalling. His conviction is riddled with so many potential constitutional deficiencies that his sentence would be utterly indefensible irrespective of his age. The evidence used to convict him of sexual assault would need quite a bit more heft to even be considered "thin": the uncorroborated testimony of two self-interested accomplices and the victim's claim that her attacker's voice -- she never saw him -- "does sound similar." Even more problematic, however, was the performance of Sullivan's counsel, Mack Plant, who has now been suspended from practicing in Florida. Amy Bach has the grim details:
Plant punted at every step, beginning with his failure to address whether Sullivan was even competent to stand trial. Social science research shows that most teens don't have the ability to determine whether to take a plea deal, much less make decisions about strategy for trial. But from the record, it appears Plant never had his client's reasoning and comprehension skills evaluated.
The lawyer declined to give an opening statement, which is like a batter not taking a swing. Plant also failed to cross-examine witnesses vigorously. He did not explore Gulley's and McCants' backgrounds to show they had a motive to lie. He never asked: "Did you get a deal here?" Michael Gulley had an extensive criminal history that included one sexual offense, according to court papers. A lawyer might have used this information to cast Gulley as a possible suspect instead of Sullivan. Plant did not. Instead, he focused on the fact that Gulley had to have his memory refreshed about the entire crime before testifying. This was a good point, but Plant blew through it. (Entire cross: a little more than a page.) And he never challenged the victim's identification of her assailant's voice as Sullivan's or asked her to listen to the other two boys' speech.
If this constitutes an adequate defense, we might as well just repeal the Sixth Amendment right now and be done with it. The idea that anyone -- let alone an adolescent -- was locked up for life with this kind of representation is an abomination. And just for the poison cherry on top, the judge didn't seem to understand the sentence he was doling out.
And if all this isn't depressing enough, Sullivan -- who, at least based on the evidence presented in court, should never have been anywhere near an adult prison -- was repeatedly sexually assaulted in prison and is now confined to a wheelchair with multiple sclerosis. The Supreme Court overturning his sentence can't repay him for what he's lost, but it would be a start.
--Scott Lemieux
