I have been a prosecutor in Kentucky since 1980, and I started working on my first death penalty case in 1981. I worked on many death penalty cases after that. I have been a speaker at the 2015 Kentucky prosecutors death penalty conference and at the 2015 death penalty conference presented by the National Association of District Attorneys.
The arguments made in the amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs filed by CJLF (Kent Scheidegger) and the comments in support of crime victims, law enforcement, and the death penalty, as presented by CJLF (Kent Scheidegger or Mr. Rushford) to the news media reporters generally conform to my views and the views of most of the prosecutors that I know. The award that Kent received from the Association of Government Attorneys in Capital Litigation (a multi-state group of prosecutors who prosecute cases in which the death penalty is requested) in recognition of his advocacy in support of the death penalty is also significant.
Unfortunately, working as a prosecutor does not necessary make someone a good spokesperson in dealing with news reporters. I would not classify myself as a good media spokesperson in spite of my years of work in the court system.
In many states (e.g., California and Kentucky), but not all (e.g., Louisiana and Pennsylvania), local prosecutors do not represent the prosecution when the case is appealed to an appellate court or litigated in federal court under the federal habeas corpus statute because under the law in those states the state attorney general's office is responsible for that litigation. Therefore, the local prosecutor may not be in position to keep track of the arguments made in the case after the trial, and that may be an additional factor that limits the ability of the local prosecutor to discuss the issues raised in death penalty cases after trials. Here in Kentucky when the local prosecutor is asked by a reporter to comment on some issue raised in a case being litigated in federal court under the federal habeas corpus statute years after the trial, that prosecutor may be mostly unaware of the arguments being made because the Kentucky Attorney General's Office has been representing the State in that court. The policy of the Kentucky Attorney General's Office is not to comment on arguments made in pending cases in courts. I agree with the policy, but it often results in the local prosecutors being asked by reporters to comment on the arguments in the cases made years after the trials and usually under circumstances in which prosecutors do not have enough time to review the case files and familiarize themselves with the current arguments being made in the cases before commenting.
Unfortunately, attorneys representing prisoners under death sentences often seek publicity in an effort to generate public support for their arguments and clients, and their arguments often omit significant facts about their cases because an attorney is not under any duty to discuss the other party's objections or rebuttal to his arguments. On the CJLF website, Kent and Bill Otis preform a valuable service by pointing this out.
I support CJLF and its work on behalf of crime victims, law enforcement, and the death penalty. I appreciate the work done by CJLF in the courts and in responding to criticism of law enforcement, prosecutors, and the death penalty as reported by the news media in the light of the expertise of Kent and the other CJLF staff.
Leave a comment