hat.capdefnet.orgLatest News | Habeas Assistance and Training

Member Login Search form Search Overview 8th Amendment From Furman to Gregg Guided Discretion Due Process Heightened Reliability The Lockett Doctrine Jury Selection and Sentencing Victim Impact Appellate Review Categorical Bans Habeas Update Helpful Cases Conflict of Interest Confrontation Clause Expert/Investigative Assistance Issues (Ake) Incompetence to be Executed Incompetence to Stand Trial Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Juror Misconduct Massiah/Henry Violations Schlup v. Delo Suppression of Evidence/False Testimony Unconstitutional Prior Convictions Supreme Court Developments Cert Petitions Granted with Decision Pending Pending Cert Petitions of Interest Recent Decisions Past Decisions Upcoming Seminars People to Help You Federal Public Defenders Community Defender Organizations Administrative Office of the United States Courts Regional Resource Counsel State Defender Offices Private Organizations Links ABA Death Penalty Assessments Assorted Death Penalty Projects/Organizations Case Law, Statutes, Federal Regulations and Statistics Death Penalty Information Federal Defenders Forensic Information Guidelines and Standards Prosecutorial Misconduct Supreme Court of the United States Latest News January 22, 2024 - Cert granted in Oklahoma death penalty case On January 22, 2024, the Supreme Court (with Justice Gorsuch recused) granted one of two pending certiorari petitions filed by Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip, 22-7466 . The questions presented in the petition are: Justin Sneed was, in the State’s words, its indispensable witness,” and Richard Glossip’s fate turned on Sneed’s credibility.” Sneed is the person who bludgeoned the victim to death, and his testimony linking Glossip to the murder was central to the conviction.” State Stay Resp. 10, Glossip v. Oklahoma, No. 22A941 (U.S.). He only claimed Mr. Glossip was involved after being fed Mr. Glossip’s name six times and threatened with execution. And his accounting of basic facts about the crime has shifted dramatically with each telling. With Sneed’s credibility already tenuous, the State undisputedly hid from the jury Sneed’s having seen a psychiatrist” who diagnosed Sneed with a psychiatric condition that rendered him volatile and potentially violent,” particularly when combined with methamphetamine use, a street drug Sneed was abusing at the time he murdered Barry Van Treese. Id. In fact, the State allowed Sneed to affirmatively tell the jury he had not seen a psychiatrist. Before the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA), the State confessed error, admitting that the failure to disclose the truth about Sneed’s psychiatric condition, leaving the jury with Sneed’s uncorrected false testimony and then suppressing this information for a quarter-century, rendered Glossip’s trial unfair and unreliable.” Id . at 4–5. Before this Court, the State has admitted Mr. Glossip is entitled to a new trial on these grounds, as well as in light of cumulative error” regarding multiple issues raised in Glossip’s Post-Conviction Relief Application.” Id . at 4. But the OCCA has refused to stop the execution of an innocent man who never had a fair trial. This petition presents the following questions: 1. a. Whether the State’s suppression of the key prosecution witness’s admission he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness’s false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law. See Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Napue v. Illinois , 360 U.S. 264 (1959). b. Whether the entirety of the suppressed evidence must be considered when assessing the materiality of Brady and Napue claims. See Kyles v. Whitley , 514 U.S. 419 (1995). 2. Whether due process of law requires reversal, where a capital conviction is so infected with errors that the State no longer seeks to defend it. See Escobar v. Texas , 143 S. Ct. 557 (2023) (mem.). The Supreme Court added the following question for the parties to address: Whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ holding that the Oklahoma Post-Conviction Procedure Act precluded post-conviction relief is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment. Read More December 13, 2023 - Cert granted in 9th Circuit capital habeas case On December 13, 2023, the Supreme Court granted the certiorari petition of the Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections in Thornell v. Jones , 22-982 . The question presented is: Over thirty years ago, Respondent Danny Lee Jones beat Robert Weaver to death and also beat and strangled Weaver’s 7-year-old daughter, Tisha, to death, for which he was convicted and sentenced to death. The district court denied habeas relief following an evidentiary hearing on Jones’s ineffective-assistance-of-sentencing-counsel claims. But a Ninth Circuit panel reversed the district court, giving no deference to the district court’s detailed factual findings. Judge Mark Bennett authored a nine-judge dissent from the denial of en banc rehearing. The Question Presented is: Did the Ninth Circuit violate this Court’s precedents by employing a flawed methodology for assessing Strickland prejudice when it disregarded the district court’s factual and credibility findings and excluded evidence in aggravation and the State’s rebuttal when it reversed the district court and granted habeas relief? Read More October 1, 2023 - Scott Panetti found to be incompetent to be executed On September 27, 2023, United States District Court Judge Robert Pitman of the Western District of Texas issued an opinion and order ruling that Scott Panetti’s execution would violate the Eighth Amendment because he lacks a rational understanding of the connection between his offense and his sentence of death. It was undisputed that Mr. Panetti is severely mentally ill, suffering from chronic schizophrenia for over forty years. Although he appeared to factually understand that he is to be executed and the State’s stated reasons for such, i.e., his capital murder conviction, he maintained persecutory delusions about the "real" reasons Texas intended to put him to death: (1) to cover up the conspiracy he uncovered concerning pedophilia, corruption, and drug trafficking, and (2) to prevent him from preaching and saving souls.” Read More July 26, 2023 - New Article on Federal Habeas Corpus The New Negative Habeas Equity by Professor Lee Kovarsky of University of Texas School of Law, discusses recent Supreme Court jurisprudence that "asserts discretionary authority for lower courts to reject relief to which claimants are otherwise entitled." Professor Kovarsky’s essay urges skepticism about the Supreme Court’s analysis, which he argues "relies on a superficial literalism that is impossible to square with statutory context, structure, and history." Read More July 13, 2023 - National Mitigation Coordinator job opportunity The Defender Services Committee of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts authorized creation of the National Mitigation Coordinator position in 2004 to increase the quality, quantity, and diversity of the pool of mitigation specialists available to handle capital cases in the federal courts. Russ Stetler served in that position from 2005 until his retirement from fulltime work in the spring of 2020. Dana Cook served in the position beginning in 2020, but decided to return to direct work with clients at the Defender Association of Philadelphia, effective July 1, 2023. The Indiana Federal Community Defenders office now administers the position and is seeking candidates with the requisite qualifications and experience, including strong writing skills, to fill the position as soon as possible. Russ Stetler has agreed to provide continuity on ongoing projects until a new person has been hired. For information about applying for the position, click here . For answers to frequently asked questions about the position, click here Read More February 24, 2023 - Important New Resource for Supporting...