LITTLE ROCK — The Muslim convert facing the death penalty over the slaying of a soldier in Little Rock is entitled to state funding for his defense, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a decision that could significantly affect the operations of the Arkansas Public Defender Commission. One state legislator warned that the ruling could lead to an “open raid” on state money by unscrupulous lawyers.
The high court’s eight page decision, written by Justice Paul Danielson, upholds the January ruling by Pulaski County Circuit Judge Herb Wright that Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, as an indigent, is entitled to funding from the commission.
“I think it’s an invitation for an open raid on the public treasury,” said state Sen. Jim Luker, a member of the Legislature’s Joint Budget Committee, which attempted in February to limit private attorneys’ access to commission funding.
The 24-year-old Muhammad is charged with capital murder, attempted capital murder and 10 other counts over the June 1 shootings at a west Little Rock military recruiting station that killed Pvt. William Long,23, of Conway and wounded fellow Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula of Jacksonville. He has told authorities and reporters that the shootings were retaliation for U.S. military policies in the Middle East that he claims deliberately target Muslims.
The question of who would pay his defense costs has been the source of a four-month court battle that began in January when his attorney, whose legal fees are being paid by Muhammad’s parents, claimed that his client was entitled to state funding because Muhammad is too poor to pay the costs himself. Wright agreed, noting that Muhammad’s parents have no legal obligation to pay any of his defense. But the commission challenged the judge’s order to pay, ultimately appealing to the high court, which heard arguments last week.
The agency contends that only defendants with commission-appointed lawyers are eligible to receiving funding from the agency, while acknowledging that the law doesn’t directly state that prohibition. At last week’s appearance before the high court, Didi Sallings, the agency’s executive director, told the justices that she can’t pay unappointed attorneys because the law doesn’t make any provision for those types of payments. The intent of the Legislature should be determined by reviewing the entire statute, she argued.
But the high court disagreed in its Thursday decision, ruling that the law is clear that the commission must pay defense costs for defendants unable to pay.
“Clearly, the language of [Arkansas Code] 16-87-212 does not limit the use of APDC funds for the defense of only those indigent defendants represented by the APDC,” Danielson wrote. “When a statute is clear, it must be given its plain meaning, and this court will not search for legislative intent; rather that intent must be gathered from the plain meaning of the language used.”
On Thursday, Sallings said the commissioners are studying the decision and considering asking the court to reconsider.
“We are examining the opinion, considering our options and considering filing a petition for review,” she said.
In the ruling, Danielson sided with Muhammad’s attorney Claiborne Ferguson over the interpretation of Arkansas Code 16-87-201, which defines an indigent defendant as a person who either can’t afford an attorney or afford necessary expenses. Ferguson drew the attention of the justices at last week’s hearing by emphasizing that that statutory “or” is the proof the Legislature intended that commission funding should not be denied to privately retained attorneys.
On Thursday, Ferguson said that even with the possibility of a review by the high court, the ruling means he can move forward on developing Muhammad’s defense.
“I’m glad the court ruled in favor of the trial judge. The trial judge was correct, and the Supreme Court was correct,” he said. “We hope to proceed to trial quickly.”
No trial date has been set for Muhammad, pending a mental evaluation to determine whether he is fit to proceed.
Ferguson put in a funding request to the commission before the proceedings began but said he couldn’t reveal the amount. He has previously estimated that expenses probably would not exceed $30,000. His funding request is likely to change anyway as defense preparations develop, he said.
“I don’t think our request will fall in anything other than the necessary or reasonable category,” he said. “I don’t think we’re asking for something that attorney Didi Sallings herself wouldn’t ask for.”
Ferguson is not allowed to collect legal fees from the commission. The ruling does not give Ferguson blank-check access to the commission coffers. The law - and Wright’s order - gives Sallings the authority to limit expenses to those costs she determines are “reasonable and necessary,” and the justices indicated at last week’s hearing that her supervision could be enough to fend off unscrupulous attorneys.
But a dispute over the funds would likely mean a special hearing before Wright, Ferguson said.
“I would assume we would have to go to the judge,” he said.
In February, the budget committee modified the commission’s appropriation bill to make nonappointed attorneys ineligible for commission funding. But the final language of Act 285 won’t accomplish that, Sallings told the justices last week. It only bars “retained counsel who have not gone through the Public Defender Commission’s attorney qualification and designation process,” she said.
Ferguson countered that the language proves that lawmakers don’t oppose indigent defendants who have hired private counsel from receiving state funding for their defenses.
Luker said he would like to revisit the funding issue at the first opportunity. The state needs a system that lawmakers can control but also provides defendants with a defense that meets constitutional standards, he said.
The Wynne Democrat said the Supreme Court’s ruling appears to turn control of commission spending over to the state’s circuit judges.
“Everyone of them is going to make their own judgment on what’s reasonable and necessary, leaving the state to pick up the tab,” he said.
Arrested 12 minutes after the June 1 shootings, Muhammad immediately told detectives that he was trying to kill Long and Ezeagwula, and would have killed more soldiers if they had been outside the recruiting office, according to arrest reports.
Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty in the case.
In a pair of phone interviews with The Associated Press, Muhammad, born Carlos Leon Bledsoe, claimed that vengeance motivated the attack. He repeated that claim in letters to the press and authorities, writing in a January letter to the presiding judge that he has ties to an al-Qaida affiliate and that the shootings were “a Jihadi attack ... justified according to Islamic Laws and the Islamic Religion. Jihad - to fight those who wage war on Islam and Muslims.”
Last month, Muhammad was charged with aggravated assault and terroristic threatening after being accused oftrying to stab one jail deputy and threatening the life of another. He is represented by Patrick Benca, an attorney hired by the defender commission, on those counts, court records show.
Appeals courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have found that poor criminal defendants are at an unconstitutionally unfair disadvantage when facing better-funded state prosecutors at trial, particularly in death-penalty cases, unless they receive adequate funding. Such rulings led in part to the establishment of Arkansas’ Public Defender Commission in 1993.
Front Section, Pages 1 on 05/14/2010