Greedy Trial Lawyer
Dirtball, Scum Bucket And Professional Jailhouse Snitch
Category: Seeing Clearly Now
Would you buy a used car from this man? Probably not. But, Virginia is going to execute an inmate this month on his very questionable trial testimony. I know a civil trial lawyer is not a criminal defense lawyer, but I am a citizen in whose name executions are carried out. Do we need an execution so badly that we are willing to vouch for the testimony of this bum? The death penalty, which I once supported, is fatally flawed.
Jailhouse witness scrutinized - Virginia prisoner who testified in Lovitt death-row case has aided authorities five times is the lead of the article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
As 1999 began, Casel Lucas, a 29-year-old crackhead, was facing decades behind bars for more than a dozen felony convictions, including attempted rape.
Passing time at the Arlington County jail, he "established a rap" with inmate Robin Lovitt. Lucas was shipped 400 miles to the state's toughest prison that March, only to return in September as a surprise witness against his former buddy.
Lucas' testimony was arguably the only direct evidence that Lovitt committed a capital murder and helped tie together a great deal of circumstantial evidence.
Lovitt, his lawyers, the jury and the prosecutors did not know it was the fifth time that Lucas, hoping for a break from the court, had helped authorities. Had his motives and full career as a jailhouse snitch been known, his credibility may have suffered.
Too late now.
Barring intervention by Gov. Mark R. Warner, Lovitt will be executed on Nov. 30 for fatally stabbing a pool hall employee with a pair of scissors during a robbery. His will be the first execution in Virginia in more than a year.
Among other things, a clemency petition filed with Warner asks the governor to look at Lucas and the role he played in Lovitt's prosecution.
Lovitt's case illustrates the concerns that defense lawyers and capital-punishment opponents have about using criminals as witnesses, particularly when the death penalty is on the table.
While Lovitt's jurors learned Lucas had testified in earlier cases, they did not know it was the fifth time he had passed information on to police.
Denman Rucker, one of Lovitt's trial lawyers, once called Lucas "a dirtball, a scum bucket," in court. In a recent interview, he asserted that Lucas "would say or do anything to try and get his time cut."
In an Alexandria case, Lucas got a 20-year plea bargain instead of a potential life sentence in exchange for his testimony.
Yet it has not been shown that Lucas lied, and many of the details of his account of Lovitt's confession matched other evidence. It also is not known what effect, if any, learning more about Lucas' background would have had on his credibility.
One juror, who spoke on the condition his name not be used, said learning of Lucas' background wouldn't have helped the witness' credibility. However, the juror said it wouldn't have necessarily caused him to disbelieve Lucas, either. The juror said he considered Lucas' testimony as part of the overall evidence.
Prosecutors say they would rather not use snitches but argue criminals usually don't confide in credible, law-abiding citizens. At times, it is necessary to use criminals to convict other criminals, they say.
Testimony from snitches has resulted in some spectacular prosecutorial successes such as the conviction of organized crime and gang figures.
But snitches have also put innocent people in prison.
Over the past 30 years, 51 of 111 former death-row inmates who had their convictions tossed out were convicted in whole or in part on the testimony of snitches, according to a 2004 Northwestern University School of Law study.
The Innocence Project, which has thus far helped free 163 people using DNA tests to prove innocence, reports that of the first 70 such cases, 16 involved snitches or informants.
Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, an anti-capital punishment group, said a confession, even one allegedly made to an inmate, can help clear doubts and ease the heavy burden on jurors in death cases.
But, cautioned Dieter, "Jurors would be mistaken to place their trust in such statements, given their inherent and proven unreliability."
According to court documents, the Arlington County Commonwealth's Attorney's office took precautions to ensure Lucas was not lying. Lucas knew details about the crime that only Lovitt could have told him, they believe.
And the prosecutors went to great lengths to make sure Lucas understood he could not and would not gain anything by testifying against Lovitt.
But Lucas later candidly admitted he still thought his help in the Lovitt case and other cases could win him a sentence reduction or other benefits, even though prosecutors and his own lawyer told him it would not.
"I still don't believe them today," Lucas said of Lovitt's prosecutors and his lawyer. "I think it's up to the judge. I mean, if the judge wants to do it, he is going to do it," Lucas said in a June, 2002 court hearing, conducted as part of Lovitt's appeal.
During Lovitt's 1999 trial, however, Lucas testified, "I knew I wasn't going to get anything" by being a witness against Lovitt. He said he was testifying because he had a conscience and because it was his civic duty.
Nevertheless, not long after Lovitt's trial, Lucas had his lawyer contact the Arlington County Commonwealth's Attorney's office for help.
Arlington prosecutors, adamant that Lucas would not benefit, refused to comply.
It was not the only complication stirred up by Lucas following Lovitt's trial.
. . .
In 2001 after the trial, Lucas signed an affidavit for attorneys working on Lovitt's appeal -- and initialed each paragraph -- in which he gave details about Lovitt's confession that conflicted with his testimony.
He also said he learned details about the murder through other jail inmates and the media, though he testified his only knowledge of the crime was from Lovitt.
After a visit from an Arlington detective, Lucas disavowed the affidavit. He said he was suffering from a toothache and was confused when he signed it.
According to the transcript of the 2002 hearing, Lucas stuck to his story that Lovitt confessed to the murder of pool hall employee Clayton Dicks during a robbery because Dicks could identify him.
"I don't know if he was bragging to me or trying to justify what he did," said Lucas.
Lucas, now 39 and incarcerated since 1998, is serving 42 years and 6 months for crimes that include robbery, abduction and attempted rape.
A 1998 psychological assessment noted that "Mr. Lucas has been treated for a mental disorder ever since 1992. He was subsequently honorably discharged from the armed forces following his Gulf War experiences."
At the time of the evaluation, Lucas was taking Trazodone, an anti-depressant. Lucas recently declined to be interviewed.
According to Department of Corrections records, Lucas served an 18-month sentence starting in 1997 for robbery convictions in Arlington and Alexandria. Then, in December 1998 and January 1999, he was convicted of 14 more crimes.
In 1995 and 1996 while awaiting trial, he helped Arlington police in an assault investigation, beginning his career as a snitch.
While awaiting trial in 1998 in the Alexandria and Arlington jails, he gave authorities information about at least four other crimes: a robbery/abduction, the wounding of a police officer, the so-called "Starbucks" murders and the Lovitt case.
Details he disclosed to Washington police and the FBI concerning the July 6, 1997, slayings of three employees at a Georgetown Starbucks are not available.
However, in a Sept. 20, 1998, letter, Washington homicide Detective James L. Trainum told Alexandria judges: "As a result of my several conversations with Mr. Lucas, we were able to advance our investigation much faster than would normally be the case."
An Alexandria detective testified in the Lovitt trial as a character witness for Lucas. He said Lucas had a reputation among police for being honest. Once arrested, Lucas always admitted his crimes and pleaded guilty, he said.
Rucker, one of Lovitt's lawyers, is highly critical of the officer's testimony.
"This detective is trained in getting guys to confess. Lucas didn't come in off the street and say, 'I got to get this off my chest.' They arrested him, they presented the evidence to him, and he rolled over. He gave up," Rucker said.
"I'll never get over that. How this guy could come into court and attest to the credibility of Lucas simply because Lucas had confessed to a number of horrendous crimes to him."
. . .
The lead prosecutor in Lovitt's case is no longer with the Arlington County commonwealth's attorney's office. Margaret Eastman, who assisted her, did not return calls.
But according to court papers, prosecutors deliberately waited until Lucas was sent to a state prison before contacting him to make sure he knew he could not benefit by testifying.
Lucas is aware of dangers in snitching behind bars. In 1999, he wrote to a judge that because of his informing other cases, "my life is now in grave danger."
In the 2002 hearing, Lucas said that two of the men he implicated in crimes "have a lot of friends, and I'm constantly running into them. So I'm constantly having problems."
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.greedytriallawyer.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/14