Supreme Court ruling could affect Lewis trial in Neb.
digg it!
Facebook
del.icio.us
Seed Newsvine
Fark It
Reddit
BY CLARENCE MABIN / Lincoln Journal Star
A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in an Indiana case might scuttle murder defendant Eric Lewis’ desire to represent himself at trial in the death of a Lincoln Regional Center psychiatrist.
The court held in June that the U.S. Constitution does not bar states from insisting mentally ill defendants be represented by legal counsel.
“It will have a huge impact on this case,” said Stu Mills, Lewis’ standby counsel. “I would think it very unlikely that Lewis will represent himself now.”
Lancaster County District Judge Paul Merritt Jr. last month granted Lewis’ request to act as his own counsel at trial. In February, Merritt found Lewis competent to stand trial for second-degree murder in the death of Dr. Louis Martin.
In his June 2 order, the judge referred to a psychiatrist’s assessment of Lewis’ competency to face the charge.
The psychiatrist diagnosed Lewis with a mood disorder and noted his potential to be disruptive and combative in the courtroom. But he concluded that Lewis has the “‘ability to at least at some level control his behavior ... if he chooses to.’”
Merritt said his own experience with Lewis is consistent with the psychiatrist’s evaluation.
“That is, it appears that the defendant has the ability to somewhat control his behavior, ‘if he chooses to’ do so,” Merritt wrote.
Lewis has shown during court hearings that he understands such legal matters as the role of the judge, jury and evidence — and the consequences of a guilty verdict.
But he has also frequently become visibly angry and accusatory and has often made bizarre, claims of conspiracies against him.
At a hearing last month, Lewis told Merritt he wanted to be examined at the University of Nebraska Medical Center to show the court that Omaha authorities have placed a device around his head and a wire in his ear to monitor or harass him.
“They got a band in my head, like AM/FM, talking, cheering,” he said. “They got me in a wind tunnel on a computer screen.”
Omaha Sen. Ernie Chambers sharply criticized Merritt’s judge’s decision to let Lewis represent himself. Foreshadowing the Supreme Court’s analysis a week later in the Indiana case, Chambers drew a distinction between competency to stand trial and competency to represent oneself.
“There’s been enough said (by Lewis) in court to show he’s not competent to represent himself,” Chambers said last month. “This man does not know the law.”
Prosecutors say Lewis attacked Martin, 78, at the hospital on July 23 because he was angry he could not return to prison. Martin’s head hit a wall and he fell to the floor. He died about 10 days later.
The court appointed Mills to represent Lewis, but Lewis frequently criticized the attorney during court hearings and in a number of rambling court filings. When Merritt agreed to let Lewis represent himself, the judge appointed Mills as standby counsel.
Mills said the U.S. Supreme Court ruling could mean his re-appointment as Lewis’ trial counsel.
Court officials have prepared a room near the courtroom to hold Lewis if he becomes disruptive during the trial. The room will be equipped with a video and audio monitor of the court proceedings.
In Indiana v. Edwards, the 7-2 U.S. Supreme Court majority said a finding of competency to stand trial does not mean a defendant is competent to represent himself or herself.
A higher standard comes into play for defendants who want to act as their own attorneys, wrote Justice Stephen Breyer.
“Given the different capacities needed to proceed to trial without counsel, there is little reason to believe that (the standard for competency to stand trial) is sufficient,” he wrote.
“‘No trial can be fair that leaves the defense to a man who is insane, unaided by counsel, and who by reason of his mental condition stands helpless and alone before the court,’” Breyer wrote, citing an earlier court ruling.
The case decided on June 19 concerned Ahmad Edwards, who was charged with attempted murder, theft and other charges arising from a July 1999 incident at an Indiana department store.
According to several psychiatric reports, Edwards suffers from schizophrenia, the Supreme Court said. He was found competent to stand trial, but the trial judge denied his request to represent himself.
Edwards was later convicted, but two state appeals courts reversed the conviction, ruling that the trial court violated Edwards’ Sixth Amendment right to represent himself.
Mills said the Indiana case is right on point for Lewis.
In light of the ruling, he said, it is likely that prosecutors will ask Merritt to rescind the representation order, or the judge will do it on his own motion.
Mills said if Lewis is allowed to represent himself, and if he is convicted and files an appeal, “the (appellate) court will send it back” because of the Indiana ruling.
One way to avoid a retrial in that scenario, he said, is to rescind the June competency order before the case goes to trial. No trial date has been set.
Prosecutors could not be reached for comment.
Defense attorney Clarence Mock said even defendants versed in the law face daunting challenges in representing themselves.
“When you have a lawyer, there’s more objectivity,” he said. “When you’re the accused, emotions are going to interfere with your ability to think clearly.”
Mock was appointed standby counsel for Thomas Wilson in his second trial in Douglas County District Court for the murder of his Bobby Wilson, 24.
Wilson was granted a second trial when the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled in 1995 that the law used to convict him of second-degree murder was flawed because it did not require the state to prove malice.
A Douglas County District court judge originally sentenced Wilson in 1986 to 35 years in prison for the murder and 6 to 20 years for using a firearm to commit a felony.
He was convicted again at the second trial, but he got a longer sentence, 50 to 60 years, for the murder.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the sentence in 2001, ruling the trial judge did not impose the second sentence out of vindictiveness. Mock said Wilson inadvertently introduced new evidence at the second trial that was damaging to his defense.
Wilson, unlike Lewis, did not have mental health issues, and Mock described him as intelligent, but unpracticed in the law.
“It’s unfortunate because I felt Tommy had a defense that could have led to an acquittal or at least a charge of manslaughter,” Mock said.
“You know what they say is true: The person who represents himself has a fool for a client.”
Reach Clarence Mabin at 473-7234 or cmabin@journalstar.com.
Publishing opinions about the guilt, innocence or character of the accused in open criminal cases can affect that person's constitutional right to a fair trial. For that reason, JournalStar.com has chosen not to accept user comments on this story.