A fed­er­al dis­trict court has over­turned the death sen­tence of an Alabama death-row pris­on­er whose aban­don­ment by his state post-con­vic­tion coun­sel led to a U.S. Supreme Court deci­sion on the right of access to fed­er­al habeas cor­pus review. On January 27, 2022, Judge Karon O. Bowdre of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama over­turned Cory Maples’ death sen­tence, hold­ing that his tri­al coun­sel had pro­vid­ed prej­u­di­cial­ly defi­cient rep­re­sen­ta­tion dur­ing the penal­ty phase of his cap­i­tal tri­al in 1997

Bowdre found that Maples’ tri­al lawyers con­duct­ed an unrea­son­ably lim­it­ed mit­i­ga­tion inves­ti­ga­tion, only briefly speak­ing to Maples’ father, step­moth­er, and a men­tal health expert who was not pro­vid­ed vital infor­ma­tion about Maples. Counsel failed to inter­view any oth­er fam­i­ly mem­bers, failed to obtain edu­ca­tion­al records, failed to inves­ti­gate evi­dence of Maples’ sui­ci­dal­i­ty and depres­sion, and as a result failed to pro­vide the jury with crit­i­cal mit­i­gat­ing evi­dence about Maples’ chron­i­cal­ly abu­sive and trau­mat­ic back­ground and the resul­tant men­tal health issues. The court found that, had coun­sel per­formed a rea­son­able inves­ti­ga­tion, there was a rea­son­able prob­a­bil­i­ty that at least one more mem­ber of his jury, which made a non-unan­i­mous 10 – 2 rec­om­men­da­tion for death at tri­al, would have been swayed to vote for life.”

Maples’ case reached the U.S. Supreme Court after Alabama’s state and fed­er­al courts refused to con­sid­er appel­late issues in his case because the vol­un­teer lawyers who were han­dling his case failed to noti­fy the state court that they had changed firms, nev­er received notice that the state tri­al court had dis­missed his post-con­vic­tion peti­tion, and missed the dead­line to file his state-court appeal. In a 7 – 2 deci­sion in January 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that his fail­ure to present his claims to the state appeals courts, which nor­mal­ly is a pre­req­ui­site to fed­er­al habeas cor­pus review, was excused because he had been aban­doned by state-court coun­sel. The Court wrote, Maples was dis­armed by extra­or­di­nary cir­cum­stances quite beyond his con­trol. He has shown ample cause, we hold, to excuse the pro­ce­dur­al default into which he was trapped when coun­sel of record aban­doned him with­out a word of warning.”

The Supreme Court returned his case to the Alabama fed­er­al dis­trict court, which in 2015 again denied his peti­tion with­out an evi­den­tiary hear­ing, hold­ing that Maples had failed to plead facts suf­fi­cient to estab­lish his tri­al lawyers’ inef­fec­tive­ness. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed that rul­ing in 2018, found that his state court lawyers had pro­vid­ed unrea­son­ably defi­cient rep­re­sen­ta­tion, and direct­ed the dis­trict court to hold an evi­den­tiary hear­ing on whether counsel’s defi­cient per­for­mance had been prej­u­di­cial. The dis­trict court grant­ed Maples’ habeas cor­pus peti­tion and direct­ed Alabama to vacate Maples’ death sen­tence and resen­tence him to life with­out the pos­si­bil­i­ty of parole or ini­ti­ates pro­ceed­ings for a new penalty-phase hearing.