Table of Contents Included in Document 

Memorandum in Support of Habeas Petition in Child Sex Abuse Case

Open Records Request

Letter to Defense Expert

Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

Moiton for New Trial 

Motion for Issuance and Enforcement of Subpoena for Additional Medical Records 

Ruling on Motion for New Trial and Ruling by Georgia Court of Appeals

Argument: With proper investigation, preparation, and presentation by the defense in this case, there is absolutely overwhelming evidence that supports Mr. Nowill's total innocence. Mr. Nowill is presently seven years into the service of his sentence of thirty years in prison because, to date, no sitting judge or sitting jury had presented to them the complete evidence in this case for their consideration. Mr. Nowill is, in fact, innocent.

Mr. Nowill is the father of the alleged victim, Heather Nowill. On August 13, 2000, Heather, then aged 16, claimed that her father had been having a sexual relationship with her over the previous four years since she was 12 years old. She claimed this sexual relationship involved digital penetration of her vagina, mutual oral sex between she and her father, and full acts of sexual intercourse with complete and full penetration of her vagina by her father's penis occurring 3 to 4 times weekly for the duration of the 4 year period of time. Stunned when he first confronted with these allegations on the day of her outcry, and continuing for 2 years including his testimony before the jury in this case, Mr. Nowill denied any sexual contact with his daughter and consistently has maintained his innocence.

On the day of her alleged outcry Heather was required to undergo a medical examination at University Hospital. The complete report of this examination was not provided to trial counsel by the State. Trial counsel did not independently request of subpoena the medical records of the examination. The State did not call the doctors who performed the medical examination to testify in the trial. Also, despite the extensive and ongoing allegations of intercourse by Heather, trial counsel did not request or subpoena the medical records from her regular doctor throughout the period of time in question. With virtually nothing except the word of the alleged victim the case proceeded to trial. Even law enforcement personnel admitted there was absolutely no physical evidence to support the allegation.

Amicus Brief in support of Petitioner-Appellee and Cross-Appellant by National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Argument: Mr. Sumpter was convicted of several sexual misconduct offenses and one count of aggravated kidnapping. The kidnapping conviction added 186 months to his sentence. Mr. Sumpter’s convictions were affirmed on direct appeal and his state post-conviction motion was unsuccessful. Kansas has appealed to the 10^th Circuit. The aggravated kidnapping conviction and sentence were vacated by the United States District Court in Kansas when the court partially granted the 2254 petition and concluded Mr. Sumpter had been denied effective assistance of counsel as to the kidnapping conviction. Mr. Sumpter was convicted of forcefully confining the accuser, yet trial counsel failed to assert the defense, long established in Kansas case law, that the alleged forced confinement was not independent of the offense of attempted rape. The defendant followed the accuser to her car and attempted to sexually assault her in the car before the victim was able to force him out of the car. Defense counsel thus should have argued that there was no forced confinement independent of the alleged attempted sexual assault. The amicus brief argues that the failure of counsel to present this long-recognized defense to the kidnapping charge resulted in an unconstitutional application of the Kansas kidnapping statute.  Mr. Sumpter was convicted of kidnapping without any determination that the alleged forceful confinement was independent of the attempted sexual assault. Therefore, the district court order vacating the kidnapping conviction should be affirmed.

Brief Of Amici Curiae The Tennessee Innocence Project, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Tennessee Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner.

Argument: Investigation of the prosecution’s scientific or technical evidence on critical facts essential to the defense is a necessary part of rendering constitutionally adequate counsel. Counsel’s investigation of forensic sciences and techniques related to a fact essential to a defense is critical because of the powerful impact expert testimony has at trial. The National Research Council of the National Academy of Science’s report on the forensic science community highlights the shortcomings of the field as well as the powerful impact that faulty forensic science can have on those accused of a crime. Extensive research has shown a positive correlation between faulty forensic science testimony and the wrongful conviction of those accused of a crime. The United States Supreme Court’s analysis of defense counsel’s responsibilities to investigate and obtain expert assistance in Hinton v. Alabama directly applies to this case. Trial counsel’s failure to introduce Inspector Miller’s statements through the excited-utterance exception is the kind of unforced error that the Supreme Court recognizes as constitutionally inadequate. 

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.

Brief of Amicus Curiae for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Florida Public Defender Association.

Argument: It violates the accused’s constitutional rights to be forced to have a probation violation hearings via Zoom or other remote means. The practice offends the right to be present (in the courtroom before the judge, with witnesses, with the accused’s own counsel) and ignores certain provisions in the Criminal Procedure.  Because counsel is remote, it also offends the right to effective assistance of counsel. By way of background: The circumstance of forced remote probation hearings has arisen in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. At the beginning of the pandemic, the Supreme Court of Florida issued a vast administrative order basically suspending any Florida Rule of Procedure that prohibited remote proceedings. The administrative order permits pleas, status conferences, and motion practice by Zoom.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner-Appellant.

Argument: Padilla held that the Sixth Amendment requires defense counsel to advise non-citizen clients of the risk of deportation from a guilty plea. Denaturalization is just as closely tied to the criminal process and at least as severe a punishment as deportation—indeed, the end goal of denaturalization is typically deportation. Counsel therefore also has a Sixth Amendment duty to advise naturalized citizens of the risk of denaturalization and, ultimately, deportation from a guilty plea. Adopting such a rule would be consistent with prevailing norms of professional practice and impose little burden on defense counsel.

Too Little, Too Late: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, the Duty to Investigate, and Pretrial Discovery in Criminal Cases, by Jenny Roberts, 31 Fordham Urban Law Journal 1097 (2004)

What should a defense attorney do when a client pleads guilty, signs an appeal waiver, and then wants to appeal after sentencing? Obey the client and file a notice of appeal.

Order granting ineffective assistance of counsel claim for securities fraud.

This month Michael H. Fox reviews The Sun Does Shine by Anthony Ray Hinton.

Brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner (on petition for a writ of certiorari).

Argument: The Maryland Court of Appeals’ decision is the first and only to hold that trial counsel’s failure to investigate an unbiased and credible alibi witness is not prejudicial. Such an unforeseen decision will impact criminal defendants and, in particular, habeas petitioners, far beyond Maryland’s borders. Both state and federal courts across the country have found prejudice from trial counsel’s failure to call a credible, non-cumulative, and neutral, alibi witness. Those courts have found prejudice even when the government relies on evidence that the alibi witness may not rebut. The decision below calls into question this “clearly established” legal precedent, impairing the ability to remedy nationwide these unique and meritorious ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

US District Court Southern District of New York: Walsh v. USA; Memorandum and Order

Amicus Curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al.

Argument: The Court should hold that the criminal defense function includes advising the client of every important consequence of a plea, in this case deportation for a non-citizen U.S. resident of 40 years and veteran of the U.S. Army resulting from a plea of guilty for trafficking in marijuana - an offense designated as an "aggravated felony" under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA). Accordingly, where, as here, such advice by counsel was not provided, the guilty plea, and conviction based on that plea, should be set aside. 

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

Argument: Overall fairness of the trial was undermined by the cumulative effect of trial counsel’s errors.

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.