The cert petition in Maples v. Thomas (10-63) is in Adobe .pdf format. The Constitution Project's amicus brief in support of the case is also in Adobe ,pdf format.
"Court to Hear Case Stalled by Mistake in Mailroom," is the title of Adam Liptak's New York Times report.
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear an appeal from a death row inmate who faces execution after a mailroom mix-up at one of the nation’s most prominent law firms.
Lawyers at the firm, Sullivan & Cromwell, had agreed to represent Cory R. Maples, a death row inmate in Alabama, without charge. When an Alabama court sent two copies of a ruling in Mr. Maples’s case to the firm in New York, its mailroom sent them back unopened and stamped “Return to Sender.”
Two associates handling Mr. Maples’s case had indeed left the firm, but it appears that no one told the court or the mailroom that new lawyers there had taken over. A court clerk in Alabama put the returned envelopes into the court file and did nothing more.
An Alabama lawyer, John G. Butler Jr., also represented Mr. Maples and also received a copy of the ruling. Mr. Butler said in a sworn statement that he was Mr. Maples’s lawyer in name only, serving as local counsel for the New York lawyers handling the case. He said he had not passed the ruling along to them or to Mr. Maples.
A deadline for filing an appeal from the ruling came and went, and so far the courts have rejected Mr. Maples’s request for an extension given the circumstances. “How can a circuit court clerk in Decatur, Ala., know what is going on in a law firm in New York, N.Y.?” Judge Glenn E. Thompson of the Circuit Court in Morgan County, Ala., later wrote.
Mr. Maples’s new lawyers, led by Gregory G. Garre, a former United States solicitor general, had asked the Supreme Court to consider two legal questions in the case, one technical, the other more fundamental. The court agreed to answer only the broader one: Whether missing a filing deadline may be excused when the inmate was blameless, the government’s actions were a contributing factor and the inmate’s lawyers had effectively stopped representing him?
"U.S. Supreme Court to review on missed Death Row deadline in Alabama," by Mary Orndorff for the Birmingham News.
Cory Maples says that the missed deadline was not his fault, and he should not be deprived of his shot at a retrial because of it. A lower appeals court ruled against him, which caused Maples to take his case to the justices in Washington.
"(The lower court) decision raises the shocking prospect that a man may be executed without any federal court review of serious constitutional claims due to a series of events for which all agree he was blameless and notwithstanding the state's own failings in the purported default," attorneys for Maples wrote in their petition to the Supreme Court.
The case also highlights Alabama's lack of a program providing attorneys to indigent Death Row inmates for their post-conviction appeals. Death penalty opponents say it is a flaw in Alabama's judicial system.
"Unfortunately, Alabama's system of postconviction review in capital cases is exceedingly complex and rife with pitfalls -- so much so that even attorneys and judges often must struggle to understand and comply with its procedures -- and Alabama stands alone in failing to provide counsel for indigent death-sentenced inmates in postconviction proceedings," wrote a group of former Alabama appeals court judges and past state bar presidents. The group, which includes former Alabama Supreme Court Justices Sonny Hornsby and Ralph Cook, filed written arguments supporting Maples' petition.
Although they had made "numerous efforts to reform this system, it remains a labyrinth in which many a hapless inmate has become hopelessly lost, sometimes through no fault of his own," the former judges wrote.
"Justices to weigh whether inmate should die after mailroom snafu," by Bill Mears at CNN.
At issue is whether a missed deadline to file a key appeal is justification to grant Maples a second chance, when the error was not the inmate's and the result would mean a punishment as serious as lethal injection.
His new attorneys, supported by some civil rights groups, say the criminal justice system has been turned on its head by allowing prisoners to suffer the consequences of their lawyers' mistakes or incompetence.
But state attorneys argue that long-established rules on filing often complex paperwork must by strictly enforced, to ensure that all parties -- including the courts -- get a proper chance to hear the claims in an orderly fashion. And the state says that in this case, Maples' appellate attorneys were from the blue-chip law firm Sullivan & Cromwell.
And:
Among the 34 states with the death penalty, Alabama alone does not automatically give all its 201 current capital inmates taxpayer-funded legal assistance to file papers challenging their convictions, sentences and lethal punishment. Big firms like Sullivan & Cromwell often step in and tackle the often long and expensive appeals process.
Lawyers for Maples say that such missed deadlines -- whatever the reasons -- have occurred before and that some flexibility should be built into the system, especially when it involves crucial constitutional issues like habeas and the death penalty.
They point to a 2006 high court ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts involving an Arkansas man whose home was sold by the state because of delinquent taxes.
"In this case, the state is exerting extraordinary power -- taking and selling a house. It is not too much to insist that the state do a bit more to attempt to let (a homeowner) know about it when the notice letter addressed to him is returned unclaimed," Roberts said in ruling for the homeowner. "Additional reasonable" steps must be taken to ensure the local resident received proper notice.
Other coverage includes:
"Supreme Court to Decide if Sullivan & Cromwell’s Mailroom Mix-Up Bars Capital Appeal," by Debra Cassens Weiss for ABA Journal.
The AP report, "Supreme Court to decide whether man can be executed after lawyer missed paperwork deadline," is via the Washington Post.
"Supreme Court to Review Sullivan & Cromwell Goof-Up," is Nathan Koppel's post at the Wall Street Journal Law blog.
Comments