including the lying, threats, promises, coercion, badgering, deception, brainwashing, prompting, indoctrination, suggestion, coaching and retribution used by the prosecution in an attempt to obtain their cooperation and testimony against Hasan and others. Because of this unfair prosecution Hasan was ultimately convicted and sentenced to die in Ohio's electric chair. To make certain that he would be convicted, the State stacked the deck. For example: lawyers for the State were being paid $60 to $100 per hour for their services. These payments were made monthly and in addition to the sums they were making in their home counties as Assistant.
County Prosecutors. These lawyers had no office expense. On the opposite side of the table, Hasan's lawyers were paid $30 an hour for their out of court time and $40 an hour for the time they appeared in court. His lawyers were told there would not be any interim billing they would have to wait until the conclusion of the case to submit their vouchers before being paid. In early 1994 he was initially given $700 for an investigator. Ultimately he was given $25,000 to hire an investigator but that money was not authorized by the trial judge until October 25, 1995, only ten weeks before his trial -- notwithstanding that he asked for it as early as January or February of 1994.
With a single investigator confronted with having to go throughout the state to interview potential witnesses -- it was the legal equivalent of giving a man who had been in the desert a drink from a fire hose. It could not be accommodated and was of no practical benefit. The short of it, Hasan was deprived any semblance of due process because of the totally inadequate funding of his defense, and the procedures used by the state to assure his conviction.
Not satisfied with this there was also interference with his right to counsel. After having appointed two lawyers one was removed when he became financially unable to proceed and the other was removed from the case when he said he could not be ready to go to trial with new co-counsel on two capital murder cases and six unrelated felony charges in five weeks. Indeed, five weeks was an unrealistic time schedule for anyone to handle such a case. The truth of the matter was the second lawyer was removed because he had been too aggressive in his attempt to defend his client. This became evident when following his removal the trial date was pushed back for some 15 months. Mind you, this was done after the judge told the media that the case would not be continued under any circumstance.
Venue was also shifted to help assure the state's goal of a conviction. Originally the case was brought in Scioto County, the location of the prison. After objection by the defendant concerning the inability to secure a fair trial in light of the number of people who worked at the prison the case was moved to Franklin County. This was a relatively neutral site and the defense lawyers accepted it. Then the judge assigned to try the case removed himself and was replaced by a judge from Hamilton County.
This new judge told the Chief Justice before his appointment that if he were given the case he would move it from Franklin to Hamilton County.
Therefore, for the new judge to have later erroneously claimed that he made the decision to move the case to Hamilton County upon a motion having been made by the State “for the convenience of the parties” is absurd. What is also significant is that the special prosecutors assigned to the case came from Hamilton County.
The new Judge assigned to try the case had been a member of the same prosecutor's office before coming to the bench. Finally, Hamilton County has the highest percentage of people accused of capital murder being convicted of those charges. By changing venue the State and Judge were able to manipulate the system to quintuple the odds that defendant, if convicted, would receive the death sentence. Then the new lead lawyer assigned to the case resigned four months before trial due to financial stress. After a month and a half of looking the Judge assigned a new lawyer to serve as lead counsel. This lawyer came into the case less than two months before the matter was set for trial, yet it was felt that he could be ready to try this truly complicated matter. When the realization hit home that this case could not be adequately prepared in such a short time he filed a motion seeking a continuance or, in the alternative, permission to withdraw in the event a continuance was denied. Not the least surprised the motion was denied. On the day of the trial and throughout the trial lead counsel repeatedly said he was not adequately prepared for trial. To make matters worse a conflict developed between the two lawyers representing Hasan and there was active dissension between them. Public arguments occurred in and out of court. Perhaps the most bizarre set of circumstances in this very unusual aspect of this case came when efforts were made by one of the lawyers to finesse the other one out of the case. This occurred on the weekend before jury selection was to commence and was initiated without Hasan's knowledge or consent.
All this had a dramatic impact on the entire trial especially the mitigation portion. For example, it was not until after the defendant had been convicted in the guilt phase of the trial that counsel began preparing a case for mitigation. This occurred despite the fact that all competent capital counsel know 1 Of 143 individuals sentenced on Death Row in Ohio by January 1996, 34 of them, roughly 25, came from Hamilton County. Franklin County had only seven individuals sentenced to die despite the fact that it has a larger population than Hamilton.
That mitigation is perhaps the most important part of the defense in a capital case and should commence at the same time as the defense on the merits begins. In spite of this counsel was too busy with the problems in their relationship to properly prepare a case for mitigation.
This may have been because lead counsel was not adequately qualified under Rule 65 to handle capital cases and could not appreciate the need for the proper development of a case in mitigation. On yet another point the jury pool was stacked against Hasan by the jury coordinator. When defense counsel noticed that three-fourths of the minority jurors were in the second half of the