The case of William Van Poyck

What Happened

On June 24, 1987, William Van Poyck and his accomplice, Frank Valdes, attempted to free a friend, James O’Brien, from a prison transport van in downtown West Palm Beach , Florida . During the incident Frank Valdes, intoxicated on cocaine and liquor, inexplicably shot and killed prison guard Fred Griffis. Both Van Poyck and Valdes were charged with first-degree murder.

Van Poyck’s court-appointed lawyer, Cary Klein, was astonishingly incompetent. Klein conducted virtually no pretrial investigation and deliberately failed to produce and introduce crucial exculpatory evidence on the critical issue of the identity of the triggerman (the only real material issue in dispute at trial). Years later, in Van Poyck's 1997 post-conviction appeal, three Justices of the Supreme Court of Florida aptly described Klein’s level of competence: Mr. Van Poyck’s lead attorney was Cary Klein. Klein was a general litigation attorney who had never before handled a capital case...The undisputed facts in this case presents a blatant example of counsel’s failure to investigate and prepare a penalty phase defense. Once again, we have a lawyer appointed who had absolutely no experience in capital cases...Knowing what we do now we should not give our approval to a sentence of death predicated upon a patent case of ineffective assistance of counsel. In doing so we are simply providing additional support to the already considerable body of evidence that the death penalty process is seriously flawed by the legal system's tolerance of incompetent counsel.
See: Van Poyck v. State, 694 So2d 686 ( Fla. 1997), at 699-701.

Trials and Appeals

Van Poyck and Valdes were tried separately, with Van Poyck being tried first. At trial, Van Poyck’s prosecutor vigorously argued to judge and jury that Van Poyck was the triggerman, even as he suppressed exculpatory evidence establishing that Valdes had shot Fred Griffis. (At Valdes’ subsequent trial 18 months later, where Valdes was sentenced to death, this same prosecutor just as vigorously argued that Valdes was the shooter). Defense counsel Klein, too, sat on his hands, deliberately refusing to introduce exculpatory evidence proving that Van Poyck did not shoot the victim. Unsurprisingly, Van Poyck was convicted of first-degree murder and in November, 1988, Van Poyck’s penalty phase jury recommended a sentence of death by an 11-1 vote. Three days before Christmas the trial judge imposed a sentence of death upon Van Poyck. Significantly, both the jury’s recommendation, as well as the actual sentence, were based in part upon the factually erroneous mis-apprehension that Van Poyck was the triggerman and that the homicide was premeditated.

For his direct appeal Van Poyck was represented by William Lasley, a court-appointed appellate attorney. Lasley proved to be a mentally ill drug addict who was repeatedly hospitalized (for drug addiction as well as mental illness) during the pendency of Van Poyck's direct appeal. Rather than research and write a competent direct appeal brief for his death row client, Lasley simply took the handwritten, rough draft sample brief mailed to him by Van Poyck from death row, and typed it up, word for word, and filed it in the Supreme Court of Florida, passing it off as his own. In doing so Lasley failed to raise crucial appellate issues that, had they been briefed, would have resulted in a new trial, and a new penalty phase, for Van Poyck. This was the brief which the Supreme Court of Florida relied upon to determine the propriety of Van Poyck's convictions and sentences. Lasley failed to file a reply brief and failed to show up for Van Poyck’s oral arguments in Tallahassee . Lasley was subsequently arrested for possession of crack cocaine, a felony to which he pled not guilty by reason of insanity. In his pleading Lasley documented his long history of mental illness and hospitalizations, as well as the many drugs to which he was addicted, including crack cocaine. Lasley subsequently pled guilty to the drug charge, and admitted, in other administrative hearings, to the theft of his clients’ funds. Ultimately the Supreme Court of Florida disbarred Lasley. Unfortunately, Van Poyck has so far been unsuccessful in having any court rule upon his claim that a repeatedly hospitalized, mentally ill, crack head attorney does not constitute the effective assistance of counsel contemplated by the Sixth Amendment.

Notwithstanding being saddled with a crack head lawyer, on Van Poyck’s 1990 direct appeal the Supreme Court of Florida acquitted Van Poyck of being the triggerman, and acquitted him of first-degree premeditated murder. Yet the court nevertheless upheld his conviction for first-degree felony murder (any homicide occurring during the course of a felony, irrespective of who actually committed the killing). Based upon its analysis under Tison v. Arizona (the legal standard for determining the propriety of a death sentence imposed upon a non-triggerman) the Florida Supreme Court sustained Van Poyck’s death sentence. Thus, although he was a non-triggerman in a non-premeditated murder, and though the Florida Supreme Court’s well-grounded position on the general appropriateness of capital punishment is that in Florida we have repeatedly stated that the ultimate punishment of death is reserved for the most aggravated and indefensible of crimes committed by the most culpable of offenders, [Brennan v. State, 754 So2d1 (Fla. 1999)]. Van Poyck remained on Florida 's death row for the next ten years.

In July, 1999, a raft of Florida State prison guards stormed into Frank Valdes’ death row cell and beat and stomped him to death. Eight guards were subsequently charged with second-degree murder. In the ensuing uproar and investigation Governor Bush ordered Van Poyck transferred to Virginia ’s death row, ostensibly for his own protection from renegade guards. He remains there awaiting execution.

Through the last fifteen years of litigation (which has included being on the wrong side of two 4-3 decisions by the Supreme Court of Florida on other appellate issues) Van Poyck has attempted, so far unsuccessfully, to utilize a trio of related 1992 United States Supreme Court decisions, (Espinosa v. Florida; Sochor v. Florida; Stringer v. Black) to win a new sentencing hearing based upon the fact that his 1988 jury recommendation, and sentence of death, were unconstitutionally tainted by being predicated upon erroneous factual findings (i.e., that Van Poyck was the triggerman and that the homicide was premeditated) which were subsequently stricken on direct appeal by the Florida Supreme Court. Although the State of Florida now openly concedes that Van Poyck was not the triggerman, he remains sentenced to death by a jury and judge who were told and convinced otherwise by the state in 1988. At present Van Poyck remains one of the few, if not the only prisoner on Florida ’s death row who did not kill anyone and who is not convicted of premeditated murder. Currently the propriety of Van Poyck's death sentence is once again under review before the Florida Supreme Court.