-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
DAVID GREENE, HOST:
OK. Today the U.S. Supreme1 Court is hearing arguments in a case that involves a pretty surprising plot twist. The lawyer for the defendant2 in a brutal3 triple-murder case told the jurors that the accused, his client, was guilty. The defense5 attorney said he did this in an effort to avoid the death penalty despite his client's insistence6 he was innocent. And the question before the justices today is whether that lawyer violated his client's constitutional right to counsel. Here's NPR's Nina Totenberg.
NINA TOTENBERG, BYLINE7: In 2008, Robert McCoy's wife, Yolanda, took her infant daughter and fled Louisiana. She went into protective custody8 in Dallas after her husband held her at knifepoint and threatened to kill her. She left her son with her parents, so he could finish high school and graduate. A month later, McCoy was arrested and charged with killing9 his wife's parents and her son. A 911 tape recorded Yolanda's mother screaming, she ain't here, Robert. I don't know where she is. The detectives have her. A gunshot is heard and then the line goes dead. From that day to this, although the evidence against him was overwhelming, McCoy has proclaimed his innocence10, alleging11 that the killings12 were the product of a drug deal gone bad and that police conspired13 to frame him because he supposedly revealed their involvement in drug trafficking.
Five months after McCoy's arrest, state psychiatric experts found him mentally competent to stand trial. But he was continually at odds14 with his public defenders15, eventually firing them for refusing to file subpoenas16 he prepared for a dozen witnesses he said could support his alibi17 defense and other claims. He briefly18 acted as his own lawyer until his parents hired Larry English to defend him. And even then, the defendant continued to file motions in his own defense. Lawyer English repeatedly advised McCoy to plead guilty in exchange for life in prison or to plead not guilty by reason of insanity19. But McCoy refused, insisting that he was innocent.
Finally, English embarked20 on a strategy of conceding his client's guilt4 in hopes of avoiding the death penalty. Directly contradicting his client's instructions, he suggested that McCoy suffered from diminished mental capacity and should, therefore, only be convicted of second degree murder. But as the prosecutor21 would soon explain to the jury, that defense was legally unavailable to McCoy because Louisiana only allows a diminished capacity argument if the defendant has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. It was one of many mistakes English appears to have made during the trial. Throughout, McCoy kept interrupting his lawyer's concessions22 of guilt, even trying to fire him. The jury ultimately sentenced McCoy to death. And the question today is whether he was denied his constitutional right to counsel.
On one side is McCoy's new lawyer who will tell the Supreme Court that when a criminal defendant refuses to plead guilty, the lawyer is not free to disregard that decision. On the other side, the state of Louisiana argues that when a lawyer and his client have irreconcilable23 differences, the client has a choice represent himself or cede24 the strategy for the trial to his lawyer. Because McCoy did not try to fire his lawyer until just days before the trial, the state contends he had to let the lawyer dictate25 legal strategy. Ten leading legal ethics26 experts have filed a brief in the case siding with McCoy. Lawrence Fox, a Yale Law School ethics lecturer, says these cases occur more often than you might expect, especially in capital cases where defendants27 are only rarely found incompetent28 to stand trial.
LAWRENCE FOX: This is a very difficult issue, obviously. Most of us would think that the lawyers should just do what's in the best interest of the client in the view of the lawyer.
TOTENBERG: But the Constitution and the legal profession have drawn29 the line differently, he says.
FOX: The client should get to decide because the client is the person who's going to suffer whatever the result is. And we can imagine many situations where a lawyer might be overbearing.
TOTENBERG: So overbearing that the lawyer's will can sometimes trump30 his client's ability to be master of his own fate. A decision in the case is expected by summer. Nina Totenberg, NPR News, Washington.
(SOUNDBITE OF BRONTIDE'S "TONITRO")
1 supreme | |
adj.极度的,最重要的;至高的,最高的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 defendant | |
n.被告;adj.处于被告地位的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 brutal | |
adj.残忍的,野蛮的,不讲理的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 guilt | |
n.犯罪;内疚;过失,罪责 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 defense | |
n.防御,保卫;[pl.]防务工事;辩护,答辩 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 insistence | |
n.坚持;强调;坚决主张 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 byline | |
n.署名;v.署名 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 custody | |
n.监护,照看,羁押,拘留 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 killing | |
n.巨额利润;突然赚大钱,发大财 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 innocence | |
n.无罪;天真;无害 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 alleging | |
断言,宣称,辩解( allege的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 killings | |
谋杀( killing的名词复数 ); 突然发大财,暴发 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 conspired | |
密谋( conspire的过去式和过去分词 ); 搞阴谋; (事件等)巧合; 共同导致 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 odds | |
n.让步,机率,可能性,比率;胜败优劣之别 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 defenders | |
n.防御者( defender的名词复数 );守卫者;保护者;辩护者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 subpoenas | |
n.(传唤出庭的)传票( subpoena的名词复数 )v.(用传票)传唤(某人)( subpoena的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 alibi | |
n.某人当时不在犯罪现场的申辩或证明;借口 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 briefly | |
adv.简单地,简短地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 insanity | |
n.疯狂,精神错乱;极端的愚蠢,荒唐 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 embarked | |
乘船( embark的过去式和过去分词 ); 装载; 从事 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 prosecutor | |
n.起诉人;检察官,公诉人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 concessions | |
n.(尤指由政府或雇主给予的)特许权( concession的名词复数 );承认;减价;(在某地的)特许经营权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 irreconcilable | |
adj.(指人)难和解的,势不两立的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 cede | |
v.割让,放弃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 dictate | |
v.口授;(使)听写;指令,指示,命令 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 ethics | |
n.伦理学;伦理观,道德标准 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 defendants | |
被告( defendant的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 incompetent | |
adj.无能力的,不能胜任的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 drawn | |
v.拖,拉,拔出;adj.憔悴的,紧张的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 trump | |
n.王牌,法宝;v.打出王牌,吹喇叭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|