No. 13-8435

 THE LEX GROUP

DC

 

1825 K Street, N.W.

 

Suite 103

 

 Washington, D.C. 20006

 

(202) 955-0001

 

(800) 856-4419

 

Fax: (202) 955-0022

 

 www.thelexgroup.com

 

In The

Supreme ourt of the United States

 

--------------------------

♦

 ---------------------------

DAVID S. ZINK,

et al.

,

 Petitioners

,

 

v.

GEORGE A. LOMBARDI, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections,

 Respondent

.

 

--------------------------

♦

 --------------------------

O

N

P

ETITION

F

OR

 W 

RIT

O

F

C

ERTIORARI

T

O

 T

HE

U

NITED

S

TATES

C

OURT

O

F

 A 

PPEALS

 F

OR

T

HE

E

IGHTH

C

IRCUIT

 

--------------------------

♦

 --------------------------

B

RIEF OF

 A 

MICUS

C

URIAE

T

HE

E

THICS

B

UREAU AT

 Y

 ALE IN

S

UPPORT OF

P

ETITIONERS

 

--------------------------

♦

 --------------------------

 

Lawrence J. Fox

 

Counsel of Record

 

D

RINKER

B

IDDLE

&

 

R

EATH

LLP

 

One Logan Square, Suite 2000

 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

 

(215) 988-2700

 

lawrence.fox@dbr.com

Counsel for Amicus Curiae Dated: February 27, 2014

 

 

i

***CAPITAL CASE*** Question Presented

Whether interpreting

 Baze v. Rees

, 553 U.S. 35 (2008), to require death row inmates’ lawyers to offer an alternative means of execution in order to plead that the present method violates the Eighth  Amendment forces these lawyers to breach multiple ethical duties to their clients.

 

ii

Table of Contents Page

Question Presented ..................................................... i Table of Contents ........................................................ ii Table of Authorities ................................................... iii Interest of Amicus Curiae .......................................... 1

 

Summary of Argument ................................................ 1  Argument ..................................................................... 2 I. Counsel Cannot Articulate an  Alternative Means of Execution Unless the Client Directs the Lawyer to Do So ..................................... 2 II. Requiring Counsel to Articulate a Means of Execution Creates a Conflict of Interest ................................. 5 III. The State’s Interpretation of

 Baze

 Forces Defense Lawyers to Breach Their Duties of Competent Representation ....................................... 9 Conclusion .................................................................. 12