Public defenders dealt setback

A state board’s unexpected decision to deny a veteran East Baton Rouge Parish public defender’s application to continue handling capital murder cases riled a judge, who Friday questioned the reason for the denial and the potential legal effect of the board’s actions.

Mike Mitchell, director of the parish’s Public Defenders Office, said the Louisiana Public Defender Board’s action will have an immediate and far-reaching impact on the local office, which already has few attorneys certified to handle capital cases.

Mitchell informed state District Judge Tony Marabella that the Baton Rouge-based LPDB recently denied Fred Kroenke’s capital case certification application and also denied local public defender Scott Collier’s application to serve as lead counsel in capital cases.

In any capital case in which a defendant is found to be indigent and his attorneys are appointed by a court, the Louisiana Supreme Court has determined that the defendant must have two attorneys certified to handle capital cases — one designated as lead counsel and the other as associate counsel. Capital, or first-degree murder, cases are cases in which the death penalty is a possible punishment.

Kroenke and Collier represent Richard Matthews, of Slaughter, who is charged with two counts of first-degree murder and five counts of attempted first-degree murder in the Dec. 23, 2009, slaying of two clerical workers at Grady Crawford Construction Co. on Greenwell Springs Road. Matthews had been fired from the firm several months earlier.

The East Baton Rouge Parish District Attorney’s Office is seeking the death penalty against Matthews, 55.

Mitchell, who pointed out after court that he, Collier and Margaret Lagattuta are now the only capital case-certified attorneys in his office, told Marabella he has asked the state board to assign new attorneys to represent Matthews.

Marabella, who noted that Matthews has been under indictment since March 2010, questioned the LPDB’s actions with regard to Kroenke and Collier, who had been previously certified to handle the case.

“How can that be?” asked the judge, stressing that the defendant and the victims’ families have the right to see the case move forward.

“This is brand-new to me as well,” Mitchell said. “This is a brand-new process.”

Marabella said Kroenke and Collier have been doing a very good job representing an uncooperative Matthews under very trying circumstances.

“Why all of the sudden in the middle of a proceeding?” the judge inquired further of the LPDB’s actions. “There’s something wrong. There’s a problem with that. I don’t know what’s going on. That’s a way to stop all first-degree murder cases — decertify attorneys.”

John DiGiulio, the board’s trial-level compliance officer, said Friday that the board has the ultimate say on the certification of court-appointed attorneys in capital cases.

“It was not timed with any particular case,” he said of the board’s recent actions.

After the Louisiana Public Defender Board took over the responsibility of certifying attorneys in capital cases involving indigent defendants, a job previously held by the Louisiana Indigent Defender Board, DiGiulio said, guidelines governing capital representation in such cases were promulgated through the Administrative Procedures Act.

Attorneys wishing to represent indigent defendants in capital cases were asked last year to file an application, he said, and a LPDB committee reviewed those applications. The review process and standards to be applied are much more stringent today, DiGiulio said.

More than 100 applications were received from attorneys wishing to handle capital cases in which the defense is court-appointed, he said.

Kroenke said the letter he received from the board does not specify why his application was denied. He said he has been capital case-certified since the mid-1990s.

DiGiulio, who noted that attorneys can appeal the denial of an application, declined to discuss Kroenke’s denial because he said the committee’s work product is confidential.

“Nobody else wants to do the certification,” DiGiulio said. “It’s not fun or easy.”

Marabella said he does not know what “effect of law” the board’s actions will have. Prosecutor Darwin Miller wondered in court whether the board’s determination will have a “substantive effect” on the case.

Marabella was supposed to rule Friday on Miller’s request that the judge appoint a sanity panel to determine whether Matthews is competent to assist his attorneys, but the judge postponed ruling on the request because of what transpired in court with regard to Kroenke and Collier.

The judge scheduled an Oct. 23 status conference and Nov. 2 motions hearing in the Matthews case and said he will subpoena LPDB officials to attend both.


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (11)


1) Comment by beabea - 30/09/2012

Always interesting watching the "small government" types twist themselves into rhetorical knots, inventing out of whole cloth rights that exist nowhere in the Constitution, all in an attempt to rationalize the notion of the government killing its own citizens. Because that is what capital punishment is. Capital punishment is the GOVERNMENT deliberately and methodically seeking the death of one of its own citizens. And they apparently want the government to be able to do this as cheaply as possible. Unbelievable!

2) Comment by tradewinns - 30/09/2012

back in the wild west days, and before, you were expected to deliver justice to those who did you wrong, those days were not that long ago. the state (meaning government) decided to take your place in delivering justice to those who wronged you.so you did abdicate your rights to the state. now that you have given those rights to the state, you should expect the state to deliver justice for you. i agree some errors are made. i believe very few and mostly the convicted cause their own problems. the problem concerning the article is, IMHO, you have lawyers (judges are lawyers) expanding taxpayers responsibility to pay for even more lawyers. why are two lawyers needed on every capital case? the defendent can represent themselves if so desired, should that "right" be stopped as they have NO legal training? why only two not three? lawyers have exceeded all boundries to ensure they make money. lots of it. and they have "fixed" the system so you'd better have a lawyer when you enter their system or you will lose.

3) Comment by Chucky - 29/09/2012

@beabea – My last comment on this topic. Worked for over 23 years in Law-Enforcement 6 years as a Psychiatric Tech and 4 years as EMT Ambulance. In my youth volunteer at the first Baton Rouge 24hr. Crises Line (Genesis House). I love people and enjoy helping. As I stated in my first post due to the erroneous convictions I am rethinking the death penalty. I am for the death penalty when the conviction is good and solid and correct. I would kill anyone who murdered a family member or close friend, being Law Abiding I leave it up to the state to carry out that justice. As for money and cost I do not care, for me it would be money well spent and a good use of my tax money, in fact better use than a lot of boondoggle and bridges to nowhere. Not sure what cost more, keeping someone in prison for 40 years or an execution, but for ME it does not matter.

4) Comment by beabea - 29/09/2012

If you want capital punishment that's carried out quickly, try China, Iran, North Korea, or Yemen (the only countries on earth that execute more people than we do). I don't think they bother with all the investigations, appeals, capital case certification, etc. that we have here so that saves a lot of time. But even though I don't know you, I think I can safely assume you love it here in the US--despite the fact that our justice system makes quick capital punishment pretty much impossible. When you put our government and elected officials in the position of having to decide whether to deliberately seek the death of another citizen, you are going to get exactly the kind of death penalty Kabuki theatre you see illustrated in this article. Does that really serve justice? Is this a good use of the public's money and resources? Despite the fact that we still have capital punishment, we still also have a murder rate in this country much higher than in many countries that have done away with the death penalty. I just want there to be fewer murders. I don't want to see our money being wasted on a costly, error- prone death penalty system that sends innocent people to death row-- which, when that happens, it also means the person who REALLY did it remains unaccountable. I want justice too. I want a justice system that WORKS. And the 300th example of our death penalty system not working, just walked out of Angola yesterday. And for this we pay enormous amounts of money! So I think we can at least agree on this: we want fewer people to be murdered. We don't like our tax money being wasted on stuff that doesn't work. Right?

5) Comment by Chucky - 29/09/2012

@beabea – OK, Someone comes on to your property and takes your mower. You see your mower in the neighbor's yard. What do you do? If you're a good citizen and do not take the law into your own hands you call the police. Now you do not want that person to do that again plus you are mad and could punch him but once again you let the law take care of it. Maybe he gets two days in jail and a fine, you are happy and hopes they learns a lesson. Now someone kills your wife and daughter after raping both of them and you know who did it. Instead of getting a gun and hunting them down AND executing them on the spot you call the police and let them handle it, this is what a civilized (living in society) person does. An eye for an eye etc. When I let the government take care of MY problem and My loss I am abdicating what I see as MY right to justice and letting the government handle it and not me. I want that person DEAD and Quickly. YOU want life imprisonment I get that, I want the person DEAD and would not rest till they were. Blood lust, Vengeance, is correct and I also call it JUSTICE. Peace Love & Good Vibes.

6) Comment by beabea - 29/09/2012

Exactly. It's a farce. An expensive farce made necessary purely by political considerations, except that in some cases (maybe not this one, but others) there's a human being's life on the line in this farce. And to something Chucky said in his comment: you cannot abdicate to the State (or to anyone else) something that you do not yourself possess. Since when does any US citizen possess the right to hunt down and kill someone else for vengeance? But this does suggest that at least for some supporters of the death penalty, it really is about revenge. It's not about deterrence or justice but about simple bloodthirst; wanting to get back at somebody. So if our justice system is driven by vengeance and run by judges and prosecutors who feel political pressure from a vengeful populace, then I guess it's no wonder we're stuck with this expensive, ineffective, farcical, and unjust form of punishment that has been rejected by every other advanced Western government on earth.

7) Comment by MissCotillion - 29/09/2012

Darwin Miller is dragging this case out because he doesn't want to try it, and Hillar Moore has to do his thing where he presses the victims to take a life sentence instead of the death penalty. Tony Marabella is hollering and pounding his little chest, which is easy enough for him to do since he knows this case will never go to trial with the death penalty on the table. It is all such a farce, and each player has his part. Such is will fate when we have pure politicians as our judge and DA.

8) Comment by beabea - 29/09/2012

The point is that even with capital-certified defense counsel, wrongful convictions STILL happen. Innocent people are still sentenced to death and in some cases executed in this country. 300 death row prisoners have been exonerated by DNA evidence alone in the U.S. Those are 300 innocent people who were wrongfully put on death row _that we know about_. How many others are there? How many innocent people has our government actually put to death? The exact number is impossible to know but there is no question this has happened. Therefore, since being innocent of the crime is no guarantee that you can't be sentenced to death, it means that this could happen to any of us. The people who want to just "hang these animals" might want to think about that.

9) Comment by Duckyluve - 29/09/2012

Public hangings are what these animals deserve. They didnt show their victims any mercy and they shouldn't be shown any either.

10) Comment by Chucky - 29/09/2012

I would think that every death row inmate who had an attorney at their trial who can not meet current standards for certified representation will have a case for a new trial .Do not think the death penalty is barbaric, i would hunt down and kill any one raping or murdering a member of my family but living in society i have abdicated that right to the State.

11) Comment by beabea - 29/09/2012

Look at all the trouble and expense we have to go to, just _trying_ to make sure the government doesn't kill the wrong person. And even with all of this, the system still gets it wrong--just yesterday, a man was exonerated by DNA evidence and released after spending 15 years on Louisiana's death row for a rape and murder he did not commit. The death penalty is much costlier than life imprisonment; it is error-prone, disproportionately applied to the poor and minorities, ineffective as a deterrent, and irreversible once carried out. Perhaps it satisfies society's thirst for revenge, and it's certainly easier politically to support capital punishment than to oppose it. But at what cost? Isn't it time we joined the rest of the Western world and did away with this barbaric form of punishment, where the government is allowed to deliberately seek the death of its own citizens?