IN THE FIFTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PARISH OF PEINE DE MORT
STATE OF LOUISIANA
No. _____

=================================

STATE OF LOUISIANA, Plaintiff
v.
JOHN CLIENT, Defendant

=================================

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE OTHER MOTIONS

COMES NOW, JOHN CLIENT, by counsel, pursuant to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article 1, Sections 2, 3, 5, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, and 24 of the Louisiana Constitution, and provides this Court with notice of his intention to file additional motions. In support of his motion, Mr. CLIENT states as follows:
1. This is a capital murder case. Mr. CLIENT, in indigent, faces the death penalty. Mr. CLIENT has filed a certain number of motions. However, there are various reasons why he has not and cannot file all motions now. Mr. CLIENT is certain that this fact is self-evident to the Court in a capital case, but he will provide some of the more compelling reasons for his notice in the passages below.
2. Indeed, the law explicitly provides for additional time for the filing of motions:
Upon written motion at any time and a showing of good cause, the court shall allow additional time to file pretrial motions.

La. Code Crim. Pro. art. 521. It is important to be clear that the accused in a capital case cannot be constrained in the filing of motions under the constitution.
3. Some are not yet ripe because the State has not complied with its legal obligations: First, for obvious reasons, certain motions are not yet ripe. For example, Mr. CLIENT has received no meaningful discovery, and has not received notice of various matters that the prosecution must provide. See, e.g., State v. Bernard, 608 So. 2d 966, 971 n.7 (La. 1992) ("[W]e reiterate that the use of victim impact evidence requires pretrial notice to the defense. * * * As in the use of other crimes evidence, the defense, upon request, is entitled to notice of the particular victim impact evidence sought to be introduced by the prosecutor and to a pretrial determination of the admissibility of the particular evidence"); State v. Martin, 376 So. 2d 300, 304 (La. 1979) (the prosecution is "required to disclose the aggravating circumstances on which it will rely when the defendant files a bill of particulars under the Code of Criminal Procedure Article 484 requesting the same"); State v. Sonnier, 379 So. 2d 1336, 1356 (La. 1979) ("the defendant is entitled to know the aggravating circumstances which the prosecution will seek to prove sufficiently in advance of court proceedings so that reasonable opportunity to prepare will be afforded"); State v. Monroe, 366 So. 2d 1345, 1348 (La. 1978); State v. Burrell, 561 So. 2d 692, 699 (La. 1990).
4. Mr. CLIENT does not yet have the resources necessary to make certain decisions: Second, this Court has yet to rule on Mr. CLIENT's application for permission to proceed ex parte on his applications for funds necessary to an adequate defense. Until this motion is granted, Mr. CLIENT cannot seek the funds he needs to investigate and present various other motions. Indeed, out of an abundance of caution, he has submitted certain motions without adequate assistance, in the hope that he can later secure the assistance and amend or supplement his motions. However, he will need further funds in order to investigate the local jury pools and assess the need for a jury challenge or a change of venue; he will need additional funds to assess the need for a challenge if the prosecutor has exhibited various invidious and discriminatory habits; etc.
5. Mr. CLIENT has yet to be granted the meaningful assistance of counsel: Third, this Court has not yet granted Mr. CLIENT funds for counsel. This Court has yet to act on Mr. CLIENT's request for additional counsel. Absent counsel and absent any funds for investigation of the case, Mr. CLIENT cannot be expected to be prepared to file all the motions which he has to painstakingly prepare.
6. The Law is ever-changing: Fourth, every business day of the year the Louisiana Supreme Court, the Louisiana Courts of Appeal, the United States Supreme Court, the Federal Courts of Appeals, the United States District Courts, and the other state courts are coming out with new decisions affecting Mr. CLIENT's substantive rights. Many of these are capital decisions, and obviously counsel must keep up to date with every one of them.
7. Particular skills are required of counsel for competent representation in a capital case. The Florida Supreme Court recently observed that death penalty cases involve "extraordinary circumstances and unusual representation." White v. Board of Commissioners, 537 So. 2d 1376, 1380 (Fla. 1989) (quoting Makemson v. Martin County, 491 So. 2d 1109, 1110 (Fla. 1986)). Such cases "raise complex additional legal and factual issues beyond those raised in an ordinary felony trial." People v. Bigelow, 37 Cal. 3d 731, 691 P.2d 994 (1985). As a result, as the Mississippi Supreme Court has held, death penalty litigation "has become highly specialized . . . few attorneys have 'even a surface familiarity with seemingly innumerable refinements put on Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S. Ct. 2909, 49 L. Ed. 2d 859 (1976) and its progeny.'" Irving v. State, 441 So. 2d 846, 856 (Miss. 1983). Thus, "[t]he minimal level of attorney competence that may be accepted as sufficient in some jurisdictions in non-capital cases can be fatally inadequate in death penalty cases." American Bar Association, Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Counsel in Death Penalty Cases, Commentary to Guideline 11.2. The guideline states: "Minimum standards that have been promulgated concerning representation of defendants in criminal cases generally, and the level of adherence to such standards required for non-capital cases, should not be adopted as sufficient for death penalty cases. Counsel in death penalty cases should be required to perform at the level of an attorney reasonably skilled in the specialized practice of capital representation, zealously committed to the capital case, who has had adequate time and resources for preparation."
8. To provide effective assistance an attorney must adequately investigate and prepare his or her client's case. Goodwin v. Balkcom, 684 F.2d 794, 805 (11th Cir. 1982) ("at heart of effective representation is independent duty to investigate and prepare"); see also McQueen v. Swenson, 498 F.2d 207, 217 (8th Cir. 1974) (attorney who does not seek out all facts relevant to client's case will not be prepared at trial). Where investigative and other services are necessary to the preparation and presentation of an adequate defense, the denial of access to those services may also deprive a defendant of the minimally effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Blake v. Kemp, 758 F.2d 523, 531 (11th Cir. 1985); Pedrero v. Wainwright, 590 F.2d 1383, 1396 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Fessel, 531 F.2d 1275 (5th Cir. 1976). See also Mason v. Arizona, 504 F.2d 1345, 1352 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 936, 95 S. Ct. 1145, 43 L. Ed. 2d 412 (1975) (failure to provide investigative assistance when necessary to defense constitutes ineffective performance).
Since counsel cannot be required to file all motions prior to being allowed access to the tools necessary to his defense, Mr. CLIENT has submitted his notice of intent to file additional motions.
??

(..continued)