Under the Effective Death Penalty Appeals Act, anyone facing a death sentence who obtains new evidence proving their probable innocence can appeal their conviction at a federal level, despite exhausting state remedies. The law would also entitle those on death row to a federal evidentiary hearing if they have proof of ineffective post-conviction counsel and live in a state where the law prohibits ineffective counsel claims on appeal.
"It should not be illegal technicalities that prevent justice from being done," Johnson told Law360 in an interview on Oct. 8. "We need justice as opposed to an adherence to Draconian and unyielding procedures."
The bill would amend a provision in the U.S. code added by the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which limited convicted persons' ability to file multiple habeas corpus petitions, or assertions that they have been wrongfully imprisoned. For death row inmates, all habeas corpus petitions are filed in federal court.
Under the current law, a defendant's habeas corpus petition will be denied if they have not exhausted all appeals on a state level and if the state has rejected the information they are now presenting federally, unless it can be proven that the state courts acted unlawfully.
In the amended version of the law, if an inmate discovers new evidence proving that they are likely innocent after they have exhausted state appeals, they can still present that at the federal level, even if they are limited with what they can present in state court based on local laws. They can also file successive habeas corpus petitions if they have found new evidence after filing the first.
And if death row inmates have evidence that their counsel had been grossly ineffective in their post-conviction appeals, the new law would also entitle them to a federal hearing reviewing the evidence.
This is the third time the bill is making an appearance on the house floor. It was most recently brought up in the 2020 session. Johnson first introduced it in 2009, bringing attention to the case of Troy Anthony Davis, who at the time was sitting on death row in Georgia for murder, but nine of 11 eyewitnesses who testified in Davis' trial later recanted their statements. Davis was not able to successfully appeal his sentence and was put to death by lethal injection in 2011.
Johnson said that the public scrutiny attached to the recent execution of Missouri defendant Marcellus Williams, whose murder conviction was called into question by both a prosecutor and the victim's family, was similar to the uproar surrounding Davis' case.
Williams died of lethal injection on Sept. 24, despite widespread calls for his release. Williams' attorneys attempted to file a flurry of appeals on the state, federal and Supreme Court level, pointing to new evidence that showed alleged bias in jury selection and contamination of the murder weapon prior to trial.
St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell even filled a circuit court motion in January asking to vacate Williams' 2001 conviction on account of DNA evidence potentially pointing to a different killer. But on Sept. 23, a day before Williams' execution, the Missouri Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision not to stay Williams' execution because his team "failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence Williams' actual innocence or constitutional error at the original criminal trial that undermines the confidence in the judgment of the original criminal trial."
Williams' lawyers also filed a clemency petition to the U.S. Supreme Court that was rejected on the day of Williams' execution.
Johnson said he represented men on death row like Williams when he was a lawyer in the 1980s, and he has been disturbed to watch the 1996 Antiterrorism and Death Penalty Act limit the avenues available to death row inmates to prove their innocence.
With the recent national attention on the Marcellus Williams case, Johnson said he believes there is a public appetite for change.
"The word has gotten out that there are people who are wrongfully convicted, including people on death row," Johnson said. "Although people want to promote and pursue justice for victims, at the same time they want to protect constitutional rights. We're moving more towards a balance that doesn't involve closing the door on habeas corpus and denying someone's ability to prove their innocence."
--Editing by Emily Kokoll.
Correction: A previous version of this story misstated the name of the bill. The error has been corrected.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
