High court mulls Ala. death row challenge of missed deadline

WASHINGTON -- The lawyer for an Alabama death row inmate told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the convict should not be barred from appealing because he missed a deadline as a result of a mail mishap.

A court had sent papers to the inmate's attorneys that the firm's mailroom returned unopened, marked "Return to Sender — Left Firm."

A majority of justices, across the ideological spectrum, appeared to agree that Cory Maples' situation was extraordinary and he might be able to challenge his death sentence for the 1995 murder of two companions after a night of heavy drinking.

"Mr. Maples has lost his right to appeal through no fault of his own, through a series of very unusual and unfortunate circumstances," Justice Samuel Alito, a conservative, said as he questioned an Alabama state lawyer about why the state did not simply waive the appeal deadline.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal, said, "We are talking about notice (triggering the appeal deadline) going to no one, and the clock ticking."

The case has drawn broad national interest. Backing Alabama are 20 states. They say if the justices side with Maples, states would see a rash of new death row appeals. Among those supporting Maples is the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which says the court should ensure that prisoners are not unfairly penalized for a lawyer's ineffectiveness or misconduct.

In his appeal of a lower court decision against Maples, Washington lawyer Gregory Garre stressed that Alabama officials had a "direct hand" in the events leading up to Maples missing the deadline because an Alabama court clerk took no action when notices related to Maples' case were returned unopened.

"Mr. Maples is not asking to be released from prison. He is asking for an opportunity to present a serious constitutional claim of ineffective assistance of counsel" related to his original trial, said Garre, who recently took over Maples' case and is a former U.S. solicitor general.

Maples is appealing the deadline question so he can ultimately obtain a federal hearing to claim that his trial lawyers in the late 1990s were incompetent. Garre noted in his written filing that Maples' lawyers back then were inexperienced with capital cases and admitted they were "stumbling around in the dark."

The phase of Maples' case now before the Supreme Court focused on two attorneys who had been at the New York-based firm of Sullivan and Cromwell and had been handling Maples' appeal of his conviction and death sentence. When they left the firm, they arranged for other attorneys to take over Maples' case but did not notify Maples.

Garre said those actions rose to the level of "abandonment."

Garre acknowledged that a local Alabama lawyer connected with the New York attorneys had received the Maples' deadline notices, but Garre said that lawyer had no real responsibility for Maples' appeal.

Alabama Solicitor General John Neiman told the justices Tuesday that nothing in federal law requires waiving the appeals deadline. He stressed in his written brief that Maples is "unquestionably guilty of murdering two people."

Garre agreed that the question at the heart of Maples' challenge was "not who shot the victim" but rather, "whether Mr. Maples was going to be convicted for capital murder or murder that would result in life imprisonment."