Taxpayers' Bill for Malvo's Defense Nears a Half-Million

This pisses me off to no end. You're telling me I'm actually helping foot the bill for this ****ing piece of ****'s defense? I think this may be taking "right to a fair trial" a little too far.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56275-2003Aug27.html

<b>Taxpayers' Bill for Malvo's Defense Nears a Half-Million </b>

<i>By Tom Jackman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 28, 2003; Page B01 </i>

The Fairfax County judge overseeing Lee Boyd Malvo's trial yesterday authorized the sniper suspect's attorneys to spend nearly $100,000 on hotels and travel for lawyers and witnesses, bringing the total cost of Malvo's <b>taxpayer-supported defense</b> to about a half-million dollars so far.

Circuit Court Judge Jane Marum Roush also authorized up to $35,000 in additional payments to Malvo's court-appointed psychologist, who has been paid more than $22,000 and has interviewed Malvo at the Fairfax County jail, court records show.

But Roush rejected a request by the defense team to order prosecutors to reveal the amounts and sources of their funding for Malvo's capital murder trial, scheduled to begin Nov. 10 in Chesapeake, Va. The judge said that the defense was welcome to seek federal money, as Fairfax prosecutors have done, but that there was no need for the government to provide an accounting because the defense is not entitled to a dollar-for-dollar match.

Roush made the rulings yesterday at one of the monthly hearings she has been holding to resolve pretrial issues in Malvo's case. Malvo, 18, and John Allen Muhammad, 42, are charged with killing 10 people and wounding three others in the Washington area last fall. Prosecutors allege that the two men hoped to extort $10 million from the government in exchange for an end to the killing and have charged them with murder as an act of terrorism and serial murder. Both counts are punishable by death. Muhammad is being prosecuted by Prince William County and will be tried in Virginia Beach in October.

Malvo faces trial in the Oct. 14 killing of Linda Franklin, 47, outside a Home Depot store in the Seven Corners area of Fairfax.

Earlier this month, the defense asked that Roush authorize an additional 200 hours for psychologist Dewey Cornell of the University of Virginia, at a rate of $175 per hour. Roush had authorized 100 hours previously so that Cornell might assess Malvo's competency to stand trial and any other mental health issues. Records show that Cornell has conducted at least six lengthy interviews with Malvo, some as long as six hours.

"What is this doctor doing to evaluate the defendant?" asked Fairfax Commonwealth's Attorney Robert F. Horan Jr. "That's his role, not to prepare the lawyers' work for defending him."

Defense lawyer Craig S. Cooley said Cornell was looking into Malvo's history and speaking to others who knew him, and Roush granted Cornell the additional time.

This week, Cooley submitted a proposed trial expense budget to the judge. Cooley said the defense team had negotiated a room rate in Chesapeake of $55.13 per night, far lower than the rates Chesapeake hotels advertised after Roush ordered the trial to be moved there from Fairfax last month. Estimating 45 days of trial, Cooley budgeted for 270 room days for six lawyers and staff members and 252 room days for witnesses, for a total hotel cost of $28,777.86.

Witness meals, at a state-ordered per diem of $36, would total $10,332. Transporting witnesses locally would cost $6,037.50 in mileage, Cooley estimated. Flying in six witnesses from Antigua to testify for Malvo would cost $5,500.80, and transporting 14 witnesses from Jamaica would cost $10,380. Malvo grew up in Jamaica, then moved to Antigua with his mother as a teenager. He met Muhammad there.

An additional 32 witnesses might be needed from Washington state, Cooley wrote, for a cost of $19,472 in airfare. Ten witnesses from Baton Rouge, La., Muhammad's home town, and other places would cost $12,230. A witness coordinator to manage all the travel would be paid $4,500. Roush approved the proposed budget but said she hoped Cooley could do it for less.

Because Malvo has no money, Roush has appointed two lawyers for him -- Cooley, of Richmond, and Michael S. Arif, of Springfield. Arif has added two of his associates, Thomas B. Walsh and Mark J. Petrovich, to the team. Horan complained about that cost yesterday.

"I've only been practicing law for 40 years," Horan said, "and I've never seen a case with four lawyers paid by the commonwealth." Roush noted that she had appointed only Arif and Cooley formally, with Walsh and Petrovich assisting at a lower hourly rate.

Arif and Cooley are paid $150 per hour, well below what a criminal defense lawyer would typically command in a murder case. Walsh and Petrovich are paid $125 per hour. Through July, Arif and his associates had been paid $199,057 and Cooley had been paid $83,142, for a total legal bill of $282,199.

"That's cheap," Arif said. "There's an enormous amount of work to be done. There are not enough hours in the day."

Three private investigators for the defense, also authorized by Roush, have been paid $55,016. Cornell has been paid $22,354. The total cost for lawyers, investigators and the psychologist plus trial expenses is $481,421.50 so far.

In a move to save on travel costs, defense investigators videotaped the testimony of 23 witnesses in Jamaica and Antigua who would testify during the sentencing phase of the trial. The defense then provided the tapes to Horan. But Horan said that he could not understand what the people were saying, that their testimony about Malvo's preteen behavior may be irrelevant or repetitive, and that the tapes provide no context about where or when the witnesses knew Malvo. Bringing the witnesses to the trial would cost $17,942, Cooley said.

Roush told the defense to begin investigating the availability of video-conferencing from Jamaica to further save on travel costs.

 

Life in prison would be fine.

Duh.

Now you're just being ridiculous. The concern is with the absurd amount of tax payer money used for his defense...not with whether defendant should have the right to a fair trial.

 

It's not the norm right now, but I think it could set a pretty dangerous precedent. If you give one guy $500,000 for his defense, what about the next guy? Why shouldn't he have access to the same resources?

I don't neccesarily think there should be a set limit for what the defense can spend, but there apparently needs to be at least <i>some</i> restrictions. I'm fairly certain that line was crossed along time ago for this trial.