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

Argument: The petitioner, a death row inmate, did not receive notice of an Alabama state court order denying his claims of federal constitutional error because the order was erroneously sent to an out of state law firm which returned it unopened. The state then waited until the time for appeal had elapsed before notifying the petitioner of the order, and the petitioner missed the deadline for his state court appeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the state’s application of its procedural rule barring the petitioner’s state appeal as untimely was constitutionally adequate and thus federal habeas review should be denied. Argument: Certiorarishould be granted because the petitioner was blameless for the default and the state’s own conduct contributed to the default; this case should be considered in light of Martin v. Walker, No. 09-996, decided 02/23/11.

Brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner.

Argument:  Ineffective assistance of counsel in an initial-review collateral proceeding should excuse the default of a substantial ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim. The right to effective appellate counsel is critically important to the fair administration of criminal justice. Defendants cannot raise ineffective assistance of appellate counsel on direct appeal and are ill-equipped to present that claim on collateral review without counsel’s assistance. Unless Martinez applies to appellate-ineffectiveness claims, attorney error in the initial-review collateral proceeding will likely deprive the prisoner of any opportunity for review. 

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the ACLU of Alabama in support of petitioner. Issue: Whether there was no “cause” to excuse a missed filing deadline in a habeas case where the petitioner was blameless for the default, the state’s own conduct contributed to the default, and petitioner’s attorneys of record were no longer functioning as his attorneys at the time of the default.

Argument: Brief argues, inter alia, that Alabama’s death penalty system is inadequate at every state in the process: Inexperienced, underpaid and ineffectual lawyers are appointed at trial and on direct appeal; racial disparities exist in the application of the death penalty; and politics encourages judges to override a jury’s sentencing recommendation of life imprisonment and impose the death penalty. 

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.

Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner-Appellant’s Petition for a Rehearing En Banc.

Argument: En Banc review is appropriate because the majority’s decision conflicts with the underlying rationale and holding of this court in Nguyen v. Curry. En Banc review is appropriate because the application of Martinez to Brady claims presents a question of exceptional importance.