Georgia is seeking the death penalty for Khan Dinh Phan, a Vietnamese immigrant charged with murder, but after four years the case has not come to trial because the state has failed to adequately fund the defense. Phan's defense attorneys are asking the Georgia Supreme Court to dismiss the death penalty part of the prosecution. "You don't have to have the death penalty in Georgia, but if you have it, the Constitution requires you must provide the defense the basic tools to prepare," said Chris Adams, one of Phan's attorneys. "Georgia has failed to provide Mr. Phan basic resources for several years, and there is no end in sight." The prosecutor in the case, Gwinnett District Attorney Danny Porter, agreed that the state is obligated to provide the necessary funds for the defense, "The state voluntarily took on this obligation of the public defender system. It's up to them to adequately fund it." A typical defense in a capital case in Georgia costs about $150,000 to $200,000. Phan's attorneys are seeking funds for overseas travel and interpreters so that they can interview his relatives and witnesses in Vietnam.
On November 10, the Georgia Supreme Court will hear arguments from attorneys for a capital defendant, Jamie Weis, and from the state concerning a three-and-a-half year delay in bringing his case to trial. For two years of that delay, the Weis defense team had no funding, and for 14 months he was completely without representation. During this entire time, the state was staffed and funded to prepare its prosecution of Weis. The Court will decide whether Weis's constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated and whether that requires a dismissal of charges, or at least prevents the state from seeking the death penalty. Weis was arrested and charged with murder in 2006. He was assigned two attorneys, but because of a crisis in the state's indigent defense system, they were forced to resign and were not reassigned with pay until close to the trial date. Weis suffers from psychosis, depression and anxiety, and has been detained in a county jail. He has attempted suicide three times while awaiting trial.
On October 13, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Holland v. Florida, a case raising the question of "whether 'gross negligence' by a state-appointed defense attorney in a death penalty case provides a basis for extending the time to file a federal habeas challenge, in a case where the habeas plea was filed late despite repeated instructions from the client." (scotusblog.com). In his petition for certiorari to the Court, the defendant stated, "Despite the State of Florida's promise to Petitioner that he have counsel to competently and effectively represent him in both his state and federal postconviction litigation, a promise that would be purportedly enforced by judicial monitoring, Petitioner's state collateral attorney, Mr. Collins, failed to timely file a (habeas corpus) §2254 petition on behalf of Petitioner." The defendant then filed his own petition for habeas corpus and, while admitting it was filed late, asked that the deadline be extended because of the serious error by his appointed attorney.
On September 22, the House Subcommittee on Terrorism, Crime and Homeland Security of the Judiciary Committee held hearings on the re-authorization of the 
On May 18, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in two death penalty cases. Both cases are likely to be argued in the fall. The Court accepted the defendant's petition in Wood v. Allen (No. 08-9156), a case from Alabama. Holly Wood claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, mental retardation, and discrimination in the jury selection process during his trial. After the trial, state and defense experts found that Wood, with an IQ below 70, had serious deficits in intellectual functioning and in at least one area of adaptive functioning--clear evidence of mental retardation. However, despite obvious pre-trial indications of this disability, the defense attorney presented no mitigating evidence on this issue to the jury during the penalty phase of the trial. The novice attorney had no experience in death penalty cases or in any criminal law. In federal habeas proceedings, the District Court vacated Wood’s death sentence due to ineffectiveness of counsel, stating that “[c]ounsel’s failure to investigate and present any evidence of intellectual functioning…is sufficient to undermine confidence in the application of the death sentence.”