ABA asks Supreme Court to review Virginia's post-conviction process in capital case
The ABA is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case of a Virginia death-row inmate.
The ABA wants the Supreme Court to review whether the state’s post-conviction process is adequate and when federal courts should defer to state court findings if no factual hearing is held, according to a press release. The cert petition is here (PDF).
The ABA is seeking cert in the case of Ricky Javon Gray, who was convicted along with an accomplice in the murders of seven people, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reports. Gray was sentenced to death for two of the slayings—the murders of sisters ages 4 and 9.
According to the ABA brief, the Virginia Supreme Court denied Gray a meaningful opportunity to present evidence in support of his constitutional claims, and resolved disputed questions of material fact without an evidentiary hearing. Federal courts nonetheless deferred to the Virginia Supreme Court.
The ABA has completed an in-depth assessment of death-penalty laws and procedures in 12 states, including Virginia. The Virginia assessment found that its system is inadequate to present and develop claims of constitutional error.
“The system prioritizes finality and expediency at grave costs,” the ABA brief said. “Death-sentenced defendants are rushed out of the gate, with onerous deadlines; they are not given opportunities to develop evidence or amend pleadings with new evidence; and, most relevant here, they do not have meaningful access to an evidentiary hearing, even when they have raised disputed issues of material fact that cannot be reasonably resolved on a paper record.”
In addition, the brief says, Virginia gives fewer protections to death-row inmates on habeas appeals than it gives to other prisoners.
The ABA brief urges the Supreme Court to grant cert and provide guidance on two issues: The first: In what circumstances may a state post-conviction court resolve disputed fact questions without a hearing? The second: Should a federal court defer to a state court’s factual determinations when it did not hold an evidentiary hearing?
The ABA says the Supreme Court should review the case and “make clear that when a prisoner’s life and constitutional rights hang in the balance, disputed questions of material fact cannot be fairly resolved by a state court without an evidentiary hearing. If a state court resolves disputed material facts without holding an evidentiary hearing, it has failed to make a reasonable determination of the facts …, and federal courts should step in to protect the constitutional interests at stake.”
