Cost of death penalty trial stirs debate in Ohio: The state and a prosecutor are appealing a ruling that a death penalty trial for a man accused of killing a college student would be too expensive. Vinton County Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey L. Simmons ruled Aug. 8 that prosecutors couldn't seek the death penalty for Gregory McKnight, who is charged with aggravated murder and kidnapping in the 2000 death of Kenyon College student Emily Murray. Simmons said paying for McKnight's defense against the death penalty would deplete the $2.7 million general fund budget of the small county in southern Ohio. "The court finds that the potential impact of financial considerations could compromise the defendant's due process rights in a capital murder trial. The court finds that this risk is unacceptable in this case," Judge Jeffrey L. Simmons wrote in his ruling.

Well, there's a twist you don't see every day. The state (or county) pleading poverty for the defense.

Ohio is a "death qualified" state -- that is, the attorneys for the defense have to meet a minimum standard of expertise or experience set by the Ohio Supreme Court. Certification also needs to be renewed regularly. If the county doesn't have a state-funded public defender's office -- and Vinton County does not seem to have such -- then private attorneys get drafted, for lack of a better word. However, unlike military conscription, private attorneys have some leeway to refuse the assignment. Capital cases tend to be extraordinarily expensive, when properly conducted. Ohio reimburses the county a fluctuating percentage of the fee, but it's not normally 50% of costs -- at one point it was 41% -- and it fluctuates depending on the state budget. Given that state budgets have taken a shellacking this year, it's probable that reimbursement rates for death penalty trials have plummeted in Ohio. After all, the state had to cut services for the retarded by 15 percent; it's highly unlikely that they would spare indigent defense, especially when the US Supreme Court has in its wisdom said that the state needn't concern itself with allocating sufficient funds for an adequate defense. In addition, many counties cap the maximum they're willing to spend on capital cases. (Given that the judge is concerned that it will exhaust the general fund, I would imagine that Vinton County's code does not cap reimbursement. Although they can do so -- and probably will after this -- since state bodies are not generally allowed to make ex post facto laws, the limit would not apply in this case.)

It will be interesting to see where things wind up after all is said and done. It's hard to imagine that the state would say that the county must bankrupt itself to provide one man's defense, but at the same time, it's hard to imagine that the state will support a decision that the death penalty cannot be pursued, purely because the state can't afford the defense.