LETTERS: ASHCROFT IS PLAYING POLITICS AGAIN

To the editor:

I am concerned and disappointed that U.S. Sen. John Ashcroft has played politics again in the nomination of Judge Ronnie White to the Eastern District Federal Court for the second time. In the Aug. 5 article in your paper and in the larger article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the senator claims Judge White would be an "activist" judge who would use the law to bring about social change.

The linchpin of the senator's argument against his nomination is Judge White's supposed opposition to the death penalty and, according to your article, is a clear indicator, "based upon his past opinions, that he would push along pro-criminal direction, rather than interpreting the law as written."In the Post article, the case he makes particular reference to is the case of James Johnson, who was convicted of killing a sheriff, two sheriff's deputies and a sheriff's wife in Moniteau County in 1991. In that case, Judge White dissented, because he believed Mr. Johnson had not had effective assistance of counsel and, therefore, deserved a retrial. The senator focused upon that as an example of the judge's desires to change the law rather than apply it.

A close look at the particular case cited by the senator shows his analysis is flawed at best. In that case, State vs. Johnson, the defense was based upon evidence at the scene that there was a perimeter device in place, which was supposed to buttress the defense claim that their client was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder from the Vietnam War. However, the prosecution later revealed the perimeter device that the defense relied upon as support was actually put in place by a highway patrolman, thus completely ruining the defense they had presented.

It is important to note that at no time did Judge White say this was not a person who was a proper candidate for the death penalty or that he was not good for the conviction. He went back to the requirements of the law as written in determining whether or not there was effective assistance of counsel. If we as a society are to have capital punishment, then it must be used only after we are firmly convinced that there has been a full and complete hearing on the matter and the accused has had full and effective assistance of counsel. That is the essence of our Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Anything less than that would make capital punishment far too easy and increase the chances of it being wrongly applied.

Again, Ashcroft ignored Judge White's opinion when White stated, as to the death penalty: "If Mr. Johnson was in control of his faculties when he went on this murderous rampage, then he assuredly deserves the death sentence he was given. But the question of what Mr. Johnson's mental status was on that night is not susceptible of easy answers."The focus of Judge White's reasoned dissent was not that this was not a case worthy of capital punishment, nor an attempt to rewrite the law in Missouri, but performing his duty as a judge of the Missouri Supreme Court to determine whether or not the greatest punishment the state can levy was appropriate in light of the defense that was provided.

In my view, Judge White's position in that case makes him more qualified to sit on the federal bench, because are these judges who are not subject to election and who are supposed to follow the law and to make tough decisions guided by their consciences. It is just too bad that he had to be the butt of more politics from Ashcroft. At the least, if the senator is going to mention a case, he ought to give a full and complete view of what happened.

MICHAEL H. MAGUIREJohnson, Montgomery & Maguire

Cape Girardeau