Article content

You may have the right to an attorney, but just make sure it’s not Dennis Hawver. Why? The Kansas Supreme Court recently voted unanimously to disbar Hawver for what the court called “inexplicable incompetence.” If you were wondering what exactly inexplicable incompetence looks like in the legal profession, Hawver is your man.

Where to start? Try this: During a 2005 murder trial, Hawver described his client — Phillip Cheatham — to the jury as “a professional drug dealer” and a “shooter of people.” Hawver’s unconventional legal reasoning only went downhill from there. Here’s the gist of the defense he mounted for his client in the capital murder trial from the Topeka Capital-Journal:

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

tap here to see other videos from our team. Try refreshing your browser, or Lawyer in Thomas Jefferson costume disbarred for 'inexplicable incompetence' after advising jury to execute client Back to video

Hawver said the strategy of Cheatham — who he described as “an experienced and highly street-smart and intelligent criminal” who was a cocaine dealer convicted of killing another “dope dealer” — was to tell jurors that if he had killed two women in 2003, he wouldn’t have left alive a third shooting victim to identify him to police. The survivor was shot eight times by the real gunman to convince her to identify Cheatham as the killer, Hawver said in explaining the trial strategy.

Not only did Hawver leave out evidence that might have exonerated Cheatham — “I had no idea that cellphones had GPS capabilities at that time” — during the sentencing phase of the trial he told jurors “they should execute the killer in his closing argument,” according to the Capital-Journal. In legalese, this strategy is referred to as: reverse psychology. As you might have guessed, Cheatham was convicted of murder and sentenced to the death penalty. Thankfully, the court overturned the conviction and ordered a retrial last year, ruling — in the understatement of the year — that Hawver had failed to represent his client properly. Here’s more from the ABA Journal: