Judge Alcala begins by summarizing the history of the sanctions saga, beginning with the execution of Blazek and Carter's client, Raphael Holiday:
On the day of Holiday’s execution, the trial court halted the scheduled execution. The trial court had found [Frank and Billy’s] motion to withdraw the scheduled execution date meritorious, and the execution was called off. The State responded to the trial court’s order by filing a petition for a writ of mandamus in this Court late in the afternoon on that same day. Holiday’s counsel filed a detailed response to the State’s petition, arguing that there was no binding precedent from this Court that supported overturning the trial court’s order. Within twenty minutes of receiving counsel’s response, this Court’s majority order granted the State’s petition. Thus, all within the span of a single day, Holiday’s scheduled execution date was withdrawn by the trial court and then later reinstated by this Court.That would be twenty minute consideration and the CCA threw Frank and Billy's response in the ash can. Remember, they were defending a trial judge decision compelling enough to stop an execution scheduled for that very day. It would be hard to get through the procedural history of a misdemeanor in twenty minutes.
Judge Alcala then turned to the CCA show cause hearing:
Several weeks after Holiday’s execution, this Court issued its show-cause orderJudge Alcala went on to explain why hauling these two fine lawyers before the highest criminal court Texas was wrong:
requiring Holiday’s counsel to appear before this Court to more fully explain their reasons for the late filing. I again filed a dissenting statement, and the same judge who had dissented on the night of the execution filed a concurring statement.
I explained that the mere ordering of a show-cause hearing at which counsel is compelled to appear to face questioning by this Court has the likely effect of chilling the behavior of other attorneys who might otherwise be willing to provide free representation for indigent capital-murder defendants facing imminent execution. Thus, the mere issuance of the show-cause order, and not the sanction alone, may result in a chilling effect on the defense bar.Judge Alcala's additional concern? The CCA is getting too deep in the (criminal defense) contempt hearing business.
Contempt hearings should be rarely conducted, and I suspect that most judges in Texas have never held one. Yet, in approximately the past year, this Court has held two of these hearings, both of them occurring as a result of late filings in death-penalty cases. Even if this Court eventually decides not to hold attorneys in contempt, as here, I am concerned that this Court’s practice of holding show-cause hearings under these circumstances may itself become a tool of submission against the criminal defense bar. A show-cause hearing and a decision to hold a lawyer in contempt should, at most, be a once or twice in a judge’s career type of event, but it seems to be becoming a once or twice a year type of event in this Court. This is concerning in that there are a dozen or so executions each year, and even one or two show-cause hearings are greatly disproportionate to the number of those cases.The other contempt hearing to which Judge Alcala refers involved David Dow of the Texas Innocence Network. I wrote about that proceeding here. Frank and Billy's show cause resolved differently, but that was not Judge Alcala's point.
The money shot from her concurrence?
As to my substantive conclusion in this case, my point is simply that, as the federal courts and other Texas courts clearly understand, a show-cause hearing should be a measure of last resort for those extreme cases of contemptuous behavior. Absent facts that would indicate that such extreme behavior had occurred in a case, this Court’s scarce resources are better spent resolving litigation that might result in the release of an innocent defendant or the final resolution of a victim’s case. (emphasis added).Boom.
UPDATE (01/13/2016): Following a show cause hearing this morning, the CCA announced in open court that Frank and Billy had shown good cause, neither was in contempt nor any sanction issue. It was a very cordial, civil display by the court and the lawyers.
CORRECTION: The Show Cause hearing for Frank and Billy is Wednesday, January 13, 2016 in Austin at the CCA, not January 16, 2016 (a Saturday), as originally posted.
ORIGINAL POST: Raphael Holiday was executed by the State of Texas on November 18, 2015. This post is not a screed against the death penalty. Instead, it is meant as tribute to lawyers I know personally, Frank Blazek and William F. (Billy) Carter, and the ridiculousness of a Show Cause Order issued by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) on December 16, 2015 for their actions in trying to save Holiday's life.
The short version is that Holiday's federally appointed attorneys abandoned him as the execution date approached. Other, better writers, here, from Brandi Grissom at the Dallas Morning News and bloggers (here and here from Mark Bennett's Defending People; here from Scott H. Greenfield's Simple Justice) have detailed the history.
In the end, it is enough to quote from Judge Elsa Alcala's dissent from the Show Cause Order, which, in turn, quotes from the federal filing by Gretchen Sims Sween, who attempted (at Holiday's request) to get the do-nothing lawyers off the case:
[Counsel] aligned themselves against their client before the district court andInto this breach stepped Blazek and Carter. They had represented Holiday at trial. Judge Hal Ridley judge of the trial court that had issued the death warrant, granted a motion to stay, and the Madison County District Attorney took a Mandamus appeal to the CCA. Balzek and Carter responded to the Mandamus filing without avail. The requested Mandamus relief was granted, the stay lifted by the CCA and Holiday was executed after a failed last ditch appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). This despite an impassioned dissenting statement by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, referenced at length in the Alcala dissent, and which can be read in the second of the links above to the Defending People blog.
now align themselves against their client and join arms with the State while
suggesting that the only attorney authorized to undertake this appeal on Mr.
Holiday’s behalf is somehow a rogue interloper. This Kafkaesque scenario is
what breeds cynicism about the representational rights that Congress enacted
and the procedural safegards that the Supreme Court has developed
specifically for the capital context.
All of Alcala's dissent in this case is a useful read. She takes the opportunity to flesh out why the CCA order granting the Mandamus request by the Madison County D.A. was erroneous. Having dealt with the CCA on a Mandamus request in the middle of Capital Murder trial, I cannot help but agree with her reasoning that the requirements for granting extraordinary relief were not present.
Alcala's dissent also quotes at length from her dissent in In re: Dow, involving a CCA Show Cause Order and sanctions against David Dow, the University of Houston Law Professor and head of the Texas Innocence Network. I blogged extensively about Dow and the CCA in a post entitled "David Dow's War."
Blazek's and Carters situation is not much like Dow's but reading that post and Judge Alcala's analysis of it in her dissent in this case fleshes out what I believe is really going on at the CCA.
The rule provides guidance for the legal community, litigants, and public about the expectations of the Court. I discussed its value in a previous case in which this Court sanctioned a pro bono attorney for zealous representation of a client condemned to death. In re Dow, 460 S.W.3d 151, 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (Alcala, J., dissenting). In In re Dow, I noted that the purpose of the rule was to ensure that a defendant had an opportunity to raise any issues pertinent to the propriety of his impending execution while ensuring that judges have an adequate amount of time in which to consider those pleadings. Id. I also expressed a willingness to sanction an attorney who was shown to 'habitually violate this rule or if he demonstrated a continuing unwillingness to abide by it.' Id. In Dow, this Court banned Dow from practicing before it for one year because he had violated this same rule, but I dissented because I thought that the sanction was disproportionate to his infraction and thus excessive. See id.In my view this Show Cause Order is a manifestation of the view expressed by Justice Samuel Alito earlier in this year during oral arguments on the death penalty case Glossip v. Gross. At oral arguments, Justice Alito accused death penalty abolitionists of engaging in "guerrilla warfare." My personal view is the CCA is taking Justice Alito's view to heart and Frank and Billy are the targets.
If so, it is just plain wrong.
Contrast this view with the way Judge Alcala ends her dissent:
In the end, the procedures employed by this Court’s majority in deciding the State’s petition for mandamus relief and this Court’s majority’s substantive assessment of the petition were so ingrained with flaws as to make one wonder whether human beings, however educated or well intentioned, are capable of determining that an execution is warranted...Though one might argue that Blazek and Carter could have acted sooner than the morning of the execution, it may be equally reasonable to argue that they deserve a medal of honor for stepping in after Holiday had been abandoned by his attorneys and for pursuing a claim that would likely result in habeas relief...I conclude that this Court should use its discretion to decline to issue this show-cause order and, further, to refuse to sanction Blazek and Carter. With these comments, I respectfully dissent from this Court’s majority order. (emphasis added).Frank Blazek and Billy Carter DO deserve Medals of Honor, not an Order to Show Cause why they ought not be sanctioned by the CCA.
The hearing is Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 9:00 A.M. I will be at the CCA that morning to support these two fine attorneys.
I hope you will be too.