Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Shinn v. Ramirez. It’s a complicated case, involving two respondents, David Ramirez and Barry Jones, who were convicted of separate murders, Ramirez in 1990, and Jones in 1995; a Supreme Court ruling in Martinez v. Ryan (2012), and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) passed by Congress in 1996.
Both Ramirez and Jones were sentenced to death in Arizona. Jones has always maintained his innocence, and there is a great deal of evidence supporting his claim. Ramirez has an intellectual disability and was subjected to severe childhood trauma and abuse. In both cases, their state-appointed lawyers failed to present this evidence, or any meaningful evidence, to bolster their defense.
Because of this ineffective representation, Ramirez and Jones had the right to contest their sentences in federal court under Martinez v. Ryan. And, in fact, in 2018, a federal judge ordered Jones’ release, and in 2019, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Ramirez’s case back to the district court.
But, AEDPA bars defendants convicted in state court from presenting new evidence in federal habeas proceedings if the evidence wasn’t developed in state court first. So, instead of simply retrying the two men, Arizona is asking the Supreme Court to void Martinez in favor of AEDPA.
And, to the surprise of many in the legal community, the Court agreed to hear the case.
“I would prefer to think that the Supreme Court granted cert because they thought that it was a matter of first impression before the Supreme Court and that the circuit courts needed guidance. Just from a political standpoint, if the Court were to agree that Martinez meant not just to allow raising a claim of IAC (Ineffective Assistance of Counsel), but to also allow an evidentiary hearing to develop that claim, taking up a case where they did not have to reverse the circuit court would be less controversial,” says death penalty lawyer and DPF board member Robert M. Sanger.
The question of innocence was immaterial to the state Solicitor General, who said more than once during oral argument that “innocence isn’t enough here,” but not surprising considering Arizona’s enthusiasm for the death penalty. But it is troubling, mainly because the majority of the Supreme Court is also dismissive of the issue of innocence, even in death penalty cases.
“Certainly, the Court has previously stated that actual innocence is not, in and of itself, grounds for the Supreme Court to intercede. But, my sense is that they will not close the door on Martinez claims, i.e., failure to raise and failure to develop a valid claim due to IAC,” Sanger says.
“I am thinking – speculating optimistically – that this is an opportunity for Chief Justice Roberts to make good on his commitment to decide cases based on law and not politics. We’ll see.”
But, “More pessimistically, though realistically, if the Court decides against the Respondents, it would either overrule the Martinez right to raise IAC of post-conviction counsel entirely or render it virtually meaningless. The barring from federal review of reasons not to impose death (as in Ramirez) or claims of actual innocence (as in Jones) would simply make it more likely that the state will execute more people who were not qualified for death under the present law or who were actually innocent,” Sanger added.
