Capital Case Roundup — Death Penalty Court Decisions the Week of February 82021

Seal_Of_The_United_States_Supreme_Court

NEWS (2/​11/​21) — Alabama: In a splin­tered vote with three con­ser­v­a­tive jus­tices not­ing their dis­sents, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Alabama Attorney General’s appli­ca­tion to vacate a fed­er­al appeals court injunc­tion that had halt­ed that night’s sched­uled exe­cu­tion of Willie B. Smith III unless the state per­mit­ted his pas­tor to be present in the death cham­ber to pro­vide reli­gious com­fort dur­ing his exe­cu­tion. In a sec­ond night-of-exe­cu­tion order, the Court lift­ed a stay of exe­cu­tion based on Smith’s claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act that Alabama had failed to make accom­mo­da­tions for his intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty with regard to his selec­tion of the method of execution. 

The Court’s vote to leave in place the injunc­tion issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on February 10 allows lit­i­ga­tion to move for­ward on Smith’s claim that the fed­er­al Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act pro­vides him the right to be min­is­tered to by a reli­gious advi­sor in the exe­cu­tion cham­ber. Four mem­bers of the Court — Justices Kagan, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Barrett — sug­gest­ed that it did, while Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh dis­sent­ed. In an opin­ion joined by the Chief Justice, Kavanaugh not­ed that Alabama could elim­i­nate any statu­to­ry or con­sti­tu­tion­al chal­lenge sim­ply by per­mit­ting Smith’s spir­i­tu­al advi­sor to be present dur­ing the execution.


NEWS (2/​11/​21) — Georgia: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has affirmed a Georgia fed­er­al dis­trict court’s dis­missal of death-row pris­on­er James Lees habeas corpus petition. 

During state post-con­vic­tion hear­ings, Lee’s appel­late coun­sel pre­sent­ed mit­i­gat­ing evi­dence that his appoint­ed coun­sel failed to inves­ti­gate and present at tri­al, includ­ing evi­dence that he had devel­oped post­trau­mat­ic stress dis­or­der as a result of the extreme phys­i­cal and men­tal abuse he expe­ri­enced as a child. The Georgia Supreme ruled that tri­al counsel’s fail­ure to devel­op and present this evi­dence was not prej­u­di­cial. The fed­er­al appeals court let Lee’s death sen­tence stand, hold­ing that the state court had unrea­son­ably applied clear­ly estab­lished U.S. Supreme Court caselaw when it denied Lee’s claim that his coun­sel had been ineffective.


NEWS (2/​11/​21) — Ohio: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has denied Ohio death-row pris­on­er James Hanna per­mis­sion to file a sec­ond or suc­ces­sive habeas peti­tion rais­ing claims relat­ing to his brain dam­age and his­to­ry of sex­u­al abuse. The court held that his claims were not suf­fi­cient­ly dif­fer­ent from the ones brought in his ini­tial habeas peti­tion to jus­ti­fy lit­i­ga­tion of a new habeas petition.


NEWS (2/​8 and 2/​9/​21) — Texas: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has denied habeas cor­pus relief to two Texas death-row prisoners.

On February 9, a divid­ed en banc court vot­ed 10 – 7 to rein­state Melissa Lucio’s cap­i­tal mur­der con­vic­tion for the death of her two-year-old daugh­ter. Forensic evi­dence sug­gest­ed that the child had not been mur­dered but may have died from injuries sus­tained as a result of a fall. In 2019, a three-judge pan­el of the court had grant­ed Lucio a new tri­al, hold­ing that the tri­al court had vio­lat­ed her con­sti­tu­tion­al right to present a defense by pre­vent­ing her from call­ing two expert wit­ness­es who would have tes­ti­fied that the state­ments she gave the police dur­ing the course of cus­to­di­al inter­ro­ga­tion after her child’s death were not voluntary.

On February 8, a cir­cuit pan­el denied James Broadnaxs claim that the fed­er­al dis­trict court improp­er­ly refused to con­sid­er evi­dence of racial dis­crim­i­na­tion in jury selec­tion that state pros­e­cu­tors had failed to dis­close dur­ing state post-con­vic­tion lit­i­ga­tion on the issue. Broadnax con­tend­ed that the evi­dence — a pros­e­cu­tion spread­sheet of poten­tial jurors that bold­ed the names of prospec­tive Black jurors — estab­lished the race-con­scious­ness of the prosecution’s jury selec­tion prac­tices in the case and was cir­cum­stan­tial evi­dence that pros­e­cu­tors had uncon­sti­tu­tion­al­ly exer­cised their dis­cre­tionary jury strikes to remove Black jurors because of their race.

Prosecutors did not dis­close the spread­sheet until state post-con­vic­tion lit­i­ga­tion in the case had been com­plet­ed, then suc­cess­ful­ly argued that fed­er­al law lim­it­ed the fed­er­al court to con­sid­er­ing only the evi­dence that had pre­vi­ous­ly been pre­sent­ed to the state court.