## Facts

- James Allen Red Dog was sentenced to death for murder, kidnapping, and rape, with execution scheduled for March 3, 1993.
- Red Dog repeatedly and expressly directed that no further appeals or motions for a stay be filed on his behalf, including written statements to that effect.
- Despite those instructions, lawyers from the Delaware Public Defender’s Office sought a stay of execution and raised concerns about Red Dog’s competency and the voluntariness of his waiver of further review.
- In an earlier emergency decision, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the denial of a stay, holding both that Red Dog was competent and that, absent a genuine factual dispute about competency, counsel lacked standing to litigate contrary to a competent client’s explicit directions.
- After that decision, the Delaware Supreme Court issued Rules to Show Cause to the Public Defender and several assistant public defenders to explain why sanctions should not be imposed for their conduct.
- The attorneys responded that their actions were a good-faith attempt to satisfy ethical duties in a capital case; the court appointed amicus curiae and received additional briefing from bar and civil-liberties organizations.

## Issues

1. Whether the public defenders acted improperly or in bad faith by seeking an eleventh-hour stay and competency inquiry contrary to a competent client’s clear instructions.
2. Whether the circumstances justified sanctions under the court’s supervisory authority over attorney conduct.

## Decision

- The Delaware Supreme Court discharged the Rules to Show Cause and imposed no sanctions.
- The court found no bad faith, accepting that counsel acted from concern for a client facing imminent execution and from perceived professional obligations.
- The court nonetheless criticized inconsistent and uncoordinated positions within the Public Defender’s Office regarding competency and litigation strategy.

## Legal Principles

- A competent capital defendant’s informed, consistent decision to waive further appeals and accept execution must be respected.
- Counsel may not continue litigation in direct contravention of a competent client’s explicit instructions absent a bona fide, material factual issue as to present competency.
- If counsel has timely, genuine doubts about competency, the appropriate course is to seek a judicial determination through proper procedure, not to pursue inconsistent or ad hoc approaches.
- Appellate courts may use show-cause proceedings to review counsel conduct, but sanctions are inappropriate where counsel acted in good faith amid competing ethical considerations, even if performance was imperfect.

## Conclusion

The court declined to sanction public defenders for a last-minute effort to raise competency and obtain a stay against their client’s stated wishes, while reaffirming that a competent capital defendant controls the decision to waive further review and that counsel must proceed in a coordinated, procedurally proper manner when competency is genuinely in question.


Red Dog v. State, 625 A.2d 245 (Del. 1993)