On June 14, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Albert Holland, who lost his right to file a federal appeal of his death sentence when his lawyer missed the 1-year deadline established under the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that Holland's attorney's conduct in missing the deadline was not egregious enough to warrant setting aside the imposed deadline. The appeals court said that the attorney would have had to act with "bad faith, dishonesty, divided loyalty, or mental impairment" to be excused from the imposed deadline, and that gross negligence was not enough of a reason. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the appeals court's decision, saying that its standard was too rigid. The Court said, "We have previously held that a garden variety claim of excusable neglect, such as simple miscalculation that leads a lawyer to miss a filing deadline, does not warrant [an exemption from the deadline]. But this case before us does not involve, and we are not considering, a garden variety claim of attorney negligence. Rather, the facts of this case present far more serious instances of attorney misconduct." Holland's lawyer failed to communicate with him for several years, despite letters from Holland asking information regarding his appeals. Holland also contacted state courts and the Florida Bar Association in an effort to have the lawyer removed from the case.
Paul Clement (pictured), former Solicitor General under President George W. Bush, along with a group of former Justice Department prosecutors and civil rights officials, is asking the U.S. Supreme Court for time to argue on behalf of a former death row inmate in a case addressing prosecutorial misconduct. Lawyers for John Thompson claimed that the New Orleans district attorney's office systematically withheld important evidence that would have exonerated Thompson of an armed robbery and murder. Thompson was eventually acquitted and freed after 18 years in prison, mostly on death row in Louisiana. In October, the Supreme Court will consider whether cities can be held liable for a single violation of Brady v. Maryland (1963), the decision that requires prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence to criminal defendants. J. Gordon Cooney Jr, Thompson’s lawyer, said he welcomes the help from Clement and the group of Justice Department officials. According to Cooney, the range of officials, both Republican and Democratic, “reflects that this is not an issue that divides neatly along lines you would think of in a stereotypical way,” and that the group “understands that there needs to be accountab[ility] for conduct that nearly cost a man his life.”
On August 24, U.S. District Court Judge William T. Moore Jr. rejected Troy Davis’s petition to overturn his conviction for killing a police officer in 1989 in Georgia. Judge Moore chose a high standard of proof that Davis would have to meet to establish his innocence claim: Davis needed to prove by "clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of the new evidence." Judge Moore did conclude that it would be unconstitutional to execute "those who can make a truly persuasive demonstration of innocence." This holding has only been assumed for the sake of argument by the U.S. Supreme Court. He also acknowledged that "the State's case may not be ironclad." Davis, who has spent nearly two decades on death row, has attracted support from many human rights groups because a number of key prosecution witnesses recanted their trial testimony, and other witnesses have come forward implicating another suspect. Last year, the Supreme Court issued an historical ruling allowing Davis to present evidence that had been uncovered since his trial. It is possible that Judge Moore's ruling will now return to the Supreme Court for further review. Read Judge Moore's ruling: 
Briefs from both parties in the 
On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court returned a death penalty case to the Georgia Supreme Court to reconsider whether the failures of the defendant's lawyer probably affected the sentence he received. Demarcus Sears was sentenced to death in 1993 for the murder of a woman in Cobb County. Sears' attorneys attempted to convince jurors to spare his life by saying that he came from a stable and loving family who would be devastated if he received the death penalty. However, the defense lawyers failed to conduct an adequate investigation of Sears' childhood. They neglected to show that his parents had been in a physically abusive relationship, that he was sexually abused and inappropriately disciplined. By the time Sears reached high school, he was “described as severely learning disabled and as severely behaviorally handicapped.” One expert determined he was among the "most impaired individuals in the population" as a result of significant frontal lobe brain damage. Although a lower court in Georgia found the defense attorneys conduct to be faulty, it concluded that the mitigating evidence that was not presented would not have made a difference. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the evidence "might well have helped the jury understand Sears and his horrendous acts ...." The Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment below, and ordered Georgia to reconsider the possible prejudice to Sears from the ineffective representation rendered by his lawyers, especially in light of other Supreme Court decisions where attorneys failed to conduct a thorough investigation.
On June 23-24, U.S. District Judge William T. Moore heard new testimony in the case of death row inmate Troy Anthony Davis, who was given an unusual chance by the U.S. Supreme Court to "clearly establish" his innocence after almost 20 years. Davis was convicted in 1991 of the shooting of a Savannah police officer based on eyewitness testimony that identified him as the shooter. During the recent hearings in federal court, four witnesses recanted their original testimony, saying that they were threatened or coerced into giving false statements. Davis's attorney, Jason Ewart, expressed confidence in the testimony of Benjamin Gordon, who stated for the first time that he witnessed Sylvester "Redd" Coles commit the murder of the officer. Coles was one of the few remaining original witnesses who have not recanted their testimony against Davis. Neither side called Coles to the stand. Judge Moore did not issue a ruling at the close of the hearings, but instructed attorneys to file legal briefs by July 7. Moore said he would rule as promptly as possible.
On June 24, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Billy Joe Magwood, an Alabama defendant convicted of a 1979 murder whose challenge to the state's death penalty law had been ruled untimely by lower courts. Magwood's first death sentence was overturned, but he was sentenced to death a second time. When Magwood filed a habeas petition challenging his new death sentence, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that Magwood's challenge to his new death sentence was an unreviewable “second or successive” challenge since he could have brought the same challenge to his first death sentence. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, said "because Magwood's habeas application challenges a new judgment for the first time, it is not 'second or successive.'" The Supreme Court decision allows Magwood to challenge his second death sentence as a brand new judgment, even if it raises issues that could have been made against the original sentence. Justices Stevens, Scalia, Breyer, and Sotomayor concurred. Justice Kennedy, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Ginsburg and Alito, dissented.