When an appeal might backfire

Here is another of those 5 to 4 rulings by the United States Supreme

Court that I have come to loathe. I find them particularly

frustrating because, but for one vote, the decision would have gone

the other way and the law would now be totally different. Many people

are hereinafter affected.

This case pertains to the matter of David Sattizahn, who, along

with his friend, Jeffrey Hammer, accosted a restaurant manager in the

parking lot of his restaurant, demanding money. When things didn’t

work out, Mr. Sattizahn and Mr. Hammer shot and killed the manager.

In his first trial, Mr. Satti- zahn was convicted of mur- der, and

when it came time to punish, the jury was dead- locked 9-3 in favor

of life imprisonment for Mr. Satti- zahn, as opposed to the death

penalty. The judge then imposed a term of life in prison, as required

by law in the state of Pennsylvania, which is where this case took

place.

Mr. Sattizahn then filed an appeal with respect to his conviction,

and the Appellate Court granted him a new trial due to a number of

mistakes made by the trial judge. Mr. Sattizahn was retried and again

convicted, and at the punishment phase, the jury imposed the death

penalty. The Supreme Court of the state of Pennsylvania upheld both

the conviction for murder and the death sentence, claiming that the

9-3 jury in favor of life imprisonment at his initial trial, and the

judge’s life-in-prison sentence for Mr. Sattizahn, did not bar the

state from seeking the death penalty at the retrial.

This is a terrible ruling. Let us say, hypothetically, that Mr.

Sattizahn didn’t do it. If someone is wrongly convicted, how can they

comfortably appeal their conviction knowing that a more significant

sentence is being put back in play?

In this case, Mr. Sattizahn could have kept his conviction for

murder and spent the rest of his life in prison; however, he decided

he wanted to appeal, or perhaps an attorney guided him to that

decision. Is his benefit for having a new trial granted to him that

he now must face death? This is extremely unfair.

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion for the divided Supreme Court,

and he stated that “the entry of a life sentence required by statute

when the jury is hung does not create an ‘entitlement’ to such a

sentence.” I think it does, or at least, it should.

The four dissenting justices were led by Justice Ruth Bader

Ginsburg, who stated that this decision “confronts defendants with a

perilous choice of either appealing their convictions and facing

death at their retrial, or forgoing a potentially meritorious appeal

and letting the life sentence stand.” My sentiments exactly. No

defendant should ever be put in that position.

For that matter, the death penalty has recently been called into

question more than ever based on the actions of former Gov. Ryan of

Illinois, who commuted all death sentences to life imprisonment on

his last day in office. As Justice Ginsburg stated, “The death

penalty is unique in both its severity and its finality.” And that

should not be something brought back into play merely by a defendant

having appealed his conviction.

Also weighing in on this matter is Chris Adams of the Southern

Center for Human Rights in Atlanta, stating that, “Some innocent

defendants who are sentenced to life may be forced to forego an

appeal of their convictions.”

The law in California is different than that in Pennsylvania.

Here, if the jury is hung on the issue of sentencing, that issue is

brought before a new jury if the prosecution wishes to make another

attempt at attaining the death penalty. This is very different from

Pennsylvania, where a hung jury, by law, requires the judge to impose

a life sentence. In Pennsylvania, in order to obtain the death

sentence, the prosecution needs to get all 12 votes the first time.

In California, if the prosecutor does not obtain a unanimous ruling

the first time, he gets another bite at the apple.

Death is such an extreme measure that I don’t think there’s

anything wrong with the prosecution getting only one bite at that

apple. If they get all 12 votes, fine, but if not, a life sentence

should be imposed. That sentence should not be subject to being

replaced by a sentence of death. People should be free to pursue an

appeal of their matter without the concern that they might win! If

they win, they then are going to trial again, and if it goes bad,

they can be put to death.

There are states that have a mandatory appellate process when an

individual is convicted of murder. Those states will now have to

re-examine their policy and/or their statute. One who is convicted

might say something along the lines of, “Please do not appeal for me.

I know the law requires it, but I would rather keep the sentence I

have than risk being put to death.”

When it comes to election time, people often resent the argument

that you are not only voting for a president, you are voting for the

justices he will appoint. But it’s true. The president of the United

States appoints the justices of the United States Supreme Court,

along with numerous other federal justices and/or judges. When 2004

comes, or any other presidential election comes up, please consider

that your vote will greatly affect our justice system.

If you are content with things the way they are, then you will

probably want to vote for the individual or party in power. If you

would like things to be different, consider that when you enter the

voting booth.

* CHARLES J. UNGER is a criminal defense attorney in the Glendale

law firm of Flanagan, Booth & Unger, and a therapist at the Foothill

Centre for Personal and Family Growth. Mr. Unger writes a bimonthly

column on legal and psychological issues. He can be reached at

charlieunger@hotmail.com.