Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Due Process Institute as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner (On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari). 

Argument: Without addressing the relevant text or history, the Eleventh Circuit held that, for purposes of the COA statute, a “proceeding under section 2255” extends beyond identifying a defect in custody—habeas’s historic outer limit—to also include the process of choosing an appropriate remedy. The court of appeals erred by reading the jurisdictional limits in the Antiterror-ism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) in isolation from—rather than in pari materia with—the jurisdictional grants that they were enacted to restrain. Read together, sections 2255 and 2253 communicate Congress’s unambiguous intent that a “proceeding under section 2255” has the same scope as a traditional proceeding for habeas corpus. This Court’s habeas precedents, in turn, make clear that the scope of that proceeding does not include selecting a remedy. review is warranted because requiring a Certificate of Appealability prior to appellate review of a choice of remedy under § 2255(b) would be the functional equivalent of abolishing review altogether. COAs are available only for constitutional claims, but the choice of post-conviction remedy is an almost purely statutory procedure, and, as a practical matter, no COA could ever issue to a defendant in petitioner’s position. This Court’s review is needed to resolve that split and correct the Eleventh Circuit’s misinterpretation of the statutes governing federal post-conviction review.

Letter to the Judicial Conference Standing Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure regarding proposed rule changes to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure habeas corpus rules.

Comments to the Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs regarding proposed regulations in capital cases to address competent and well-funded counsel, post-conviction review, wrongful conviction, and racial disparity issues.

Brief of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner-Appellant.

Argument: Walters’ counsel’s utter failure to communicate constructively denied him counsel so prejudice should be presumed. Alternatively, Mr. Walters established prejudice under Strickland and Frye resulting from his counsel’s pervasive neglect. There is a reasonable probability that the favorable March plea offer would have been accepted and entered if counsel had communicated with Mr. Walters. If Mr. Stanley’s deficient performance is instead viewed as a series of separate errors, Strickland compels a cumulative consideration of prejudice.

President Gerald B. Lefcourt's written statement to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts regarding misconduct in FBI labs that interferes with criminal cases, revealed in a Department of Justice Inspector General's report.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of petitioner.

Argument: The verbatim adoption of proposed orders is typical in Alabama capital postconviction cases and produces serious flaws in the resulting orders. The Eleventh Circuit erred in accepting as reasonable erroneous factual determinations in the trial court’s orders that were adopted verbatim from the proposed orders drafted by state prosecutors.

Brief of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner.

Argument: A Rule 59 motion is "part and parcel" of a habeas petitioner's "one full opportunity" to litigate a first federal habeas petition. The Fifth Circuit's rule leads to inefficient judicial administration of habeas petitions and unfair results for habeas petitioners. Rule 59 motions allow district courts to correct their own errors before judgment becomes final, thus avoiding unnecessary reversals and unfair results. Rule 59 motions also allow district courts to clarify their own orders even where they continue to deny relief, thus avoiding unnecessary remands. Eliminating Rule 59 motions would create additional burdens for the court of appeals. Recharacterizing Rule 59 motions as unauthorized second or successive petitions would deprive many petitioners of the opportunity to appeal in their first federal habeas proceedings.

Whether state supreme court’s denial of post-conviction relief was decision “on the merits” for federal post-conviction purposes where state court denied relief without comment.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Federal Defenders and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of Petitioner.

Argument: The absences of a “full and fair” state court review of petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim renders the Fourth Circuit’s application of §2254(d)(1) a violation of due process.

Supreme Court Declines to Re-impose Death Sentence - Washington, DC­ (May 21, 2007) – The U.S. Supreme Court today dismissed the state’s appeal of a lower court decision which threw out a Missouri prisoner’s death sentence. A majority of the Court, in an unsigned “per curiam” opinion, relied on an argument made by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, in a “friend of the court” brief, that the trial court misinterpreted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) and federal case law when it dismissed death row inmate William Weaver’s...

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of respondent.

Argument: AEDPA deference to a state court’s summary disposition does not apply in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim because the plain language of 28 U.S.C. §2254(d) authorizes deferential treatment only after that decision has been subjected to the analyses prescribed in (d)(1) and (d)(2). Where the state court’s decision fails to provide the information necessary to facilitate those analyses, however, the process Congress prescribed cannot be carried out. Held: Section 2254(d) applies to respondent Richter’s habeas petition, even though the state court’s order was unaccompanied by an opinion explaining the court’s reasoning.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of the petition for certiorari.

Argument: New York's state constitutional “meaningful representation” standard to evaluate Sixth Amendment claims of ineffective assistance of counsel results in decisions that are "contrary to, or involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law" as required by the federal habeas statute.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of the petition for certiorari.

Argument: The court of appeals held that a habeas petitioner may only obtain relief on the basis of a “new rule” if the Supreme Court has announced it by the date of a petitioner’s last state court decision on the merits; this interpretation of “clearly established federal law” would create a class of petitioners theoretically entitled retroactive application of new rules but unable to obtain habeas relief. 

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Innocence Network in support of petitioner.

Argument: Appellate jurisdiction under Sec. 2253 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) does not depend upon a COA’s conformity with technical formalities; direct review of a state criminal conviction cannot conclude for purposes of Sec. 2244(d)(1)(A) before the highest court to review the case relinquishes jurisdiction by issuing a mandate or its equivalent.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Argument: An application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is “pending” under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), while the U.S. Supreme Court is deciding whether to grant certiorari review of the case. Even if the statute is unclear, any ambiguity should be decided in favor of the petitioner.