New sentencing ordered for man

A federal judge has ordered a new sentencing hearing for a Philadelphia death row inmate, concluding that he had not received effective legal representation at trial and that the jury had been given misleading instructions.

The ruling came in the case of Kelvin X. Morris, 47, who was convicted and sentenced to death in 1983 in the shooting death of Robert McDonald, the manager of an auto-parts store in West Philadelphia.

McDonald had been called to the store in the early morning hours of Aug. 9, 1980, because of a broken front window. He was shot a short time later during a robbery.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld Morris' conviction in 1989, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Rodriguez concluded on Wednesday that Morris deserved a new penalty hearing because his trial counsel, Leon Tucker, now a Philadelphia Common Pleas Court judge, had failed to fully investigate an array of compelling "mitigating" evidence that might have persuaded the jury to decide on life in prison rather than death.

That evidence, he said, included a history of childhood abuse, brain damage and mental problems.

In addition, Rodriguez ordered a hearing to determine whether Tucker had a conflict of interest because, in a separate civil case, he also was representing Morris' brother, Artie, who had been identified by several witnesses as the gunman.

Rodriguez concluded that this left Tucker in a tough spot. Instead of identifying his "other client" as an "alternative suspect," the judge said, he tried to "insulate Artie" during his brother's murder trial.

"Defense counsel had to choose between mounting the most compelling . . . defense available" for Kelvin Morris and protecting his other client's "financial interest (as well as his own financial stake) by not pursuing a defense that damaged the civil claim," Rodriguez wrote in a 92-page opinion.

In a telephone interview yesterday, Tucker said he disagreed with Rodriguez's ruling and had never before been found to have been an ineffective lawyer. He declined to comment further, except to note that the law has evolved substantially over the years as the U.S. Supreme Court has clarified the minimum steps a defense lawyer must take to be effective in capital cases.