Six years ago,
Gregory Garre, head of
Latham & Watkins' Supreme Court and appellate practice,
persuaded the justices that Alabama death row inmate Cory Maples deserved federal court review of his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel even though he had missed a crucial filing deadline.
A 7-2 majority, led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, held that Maples was blameless for the missed deadline. His two pro bono lawyers had left their law firm,
Sullivan & Cromwell, without notifying him or the state court which had denied his state post-conviction appeal. The notice of the denial, mailed to the law firm, was returned unopened to the court.
"Maples was disarmed by extraordinary circumstances quite beyond his control," Ginsburg wrote. "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 case was remanded for federal court review.
Garre and his team had represented Maples on a paid basis in the Supreme Court, but following the Supreme Court's decision, they continued on a pro bono basis.
"After the Supreme Court issued its decision, I didn’t feel it was appropriate to say, 'The Supreme Court has given you your day in court. Good luck,'" recalled Garre.
On remand, a federal district court held that the state habeas court's denial of Maples' claims was not unreasonable. But on April 5, a 2-1 panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
disagreed and ordered the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing.
► "The state habeas court did not merely misconstrue a few facts in the record; the court—in a capital case—relied on the wrong set of facts. And that error led to a decision based on factual conclusions that cannot be reconciled with the record," Judge Charles Wilson wrote. New and more extensive allegations, he wrote, "identify powerful, more in-depth mitigation evidence, and establish a reasonable probability that, but for trial counsel’s deficient performance, the result of Maples’ penalty-phase proceeding would have been different."
An evidentiary hearing for Maples was always the goal, Garre said. He and the firm plan to stick with the case. "We'll get involved folks who focus on aspects of trial court practice," he said.
The case was "a huge commitment," said Garre. "We've filed hundreds of pages of briefs at the district court and court of appeals levels. Obviously the stakes are so high in these cases that it's easy to commit the time and resources necessary to make the strongest possible arguments."
Latham partner
Scott Ballenger worked on the Supreme Court case, which Garre argued. "Lots of fantastic associates" also contributed, Garre said, including summer associates who helped him prepare for the Eleventh Circuit arguments.
"I've been on both sides of death penalty cases," said Garre, a former U.S. solicitor general. "As is always true, being on other side, you can see things from a different perspective. Habeas petitioners in these circumstances face daunting challenges."
Comments
Post a Comment