Dem lawmaker reintroduces death row appeals bill allowing for introduction of newly discovered evidence

Georgia Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson re-introduced a death row appeals bill that would allow death row inmates the opportunity to introduce newly discovered evidence in their appeal. 

H.R. 9868, also called the Effective Death Penalty Act, was initially introduced in 2009 and later in 2020. The bill would amend a provision in the U.S. Code that currently governs circumstances under which a state prisoner can file a habeas corpus petition. 

“We’ve got innocent people on death row right now with no opportunity to show compelling new evidence of innocence,” Johnson said in a press statement released on Wednesday. “The status quo is inhumane and unconstitutional.” 

TEXAS DEATH ROW INMATE’S LAWYER SAYS ‘THERE WAS NO CRIME’ AS SHE MAKES LAST-DITCH EFFORT TO SAVE HIS LIFE

Under current law, a federal court cannot grant a habeas corpus petition unless the petitioner has already exhausted all state court remedies. This requirement was explained by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1999, with the Court stating that such a requirement “is designed to give the state courts a full and fair opportunity to resolve federal constitutional claims before those claims are presented to federal courts.” 

Georgia Rep. Hank Johnson re-introduced a death row appeals bill that would allow death row inmates the opportunity to introduce newly discovered evidence in their appeal. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

The bill would allow a death row inmate to not only introduce newly discovered evidence that “demonstrates that the applicant is probably not guilty of the underlying offense,” but to also raise an ineffective counsel claim on direct appeal. Some states do not currently allow for such a claim on direct appeal. 

The added provision comes as a result of the 2022 Supreme Court case, Shinn v. Ramirez, when the Court held that a habeas corpus court may not conduct an evidentiary hearing or consider evidence beyond the state-court record based on an ineffective counsel claim. 

OKLAHOMA AG SUPPORTS NEW TRIAL FOR DEATH ROW INMATE WHO HAS HAD 3 ‘LAST MEALS’

“I believe we should completely abolish the death penalty, but while 25 states – half of which are in the South – still have some form of capital punishment on their books and some states like Alabama, Texas and Georgia continue to hold state executions – America needs the Effective Death Penalty Appeals Act to help wrongly convicted people on death row present newly discovered evidence that they are innocent,” Johnson said in the statement. 

“We’ve got innocent people on death row right now with no opportunity to show compelling new evidence of innocence,” Rep. Hank Johnson said in a press statement released on Wednesday. “The status quo is inhumane and unconstitutional.” (DOUG MILLS/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-ME, Democratic House Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., are co-sponsoring the bill. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The Supreme Court, which kicked off its new term earlier this month, heard oral arguments Wednesday on an appeal from Oklahoma inmate Richard Glossip, who has maintained his innocence in connection with a 1997 murder-for-hire of the owner of a motel he previously worked at. Glossip’s initial conviction was reversed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals after the court found he had received “constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel in numerous respects,” according to the brief filed. 

Anti-death penalty activists, including members of MoveOn.org and other advocacy groups rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court in an attempt to prevent the execution of Oklahoma inmate Richard Glossip on Sept. 29, 2015 in Washington, D.C. (Larry French/Getty Images for MoveOn.org)

Glossip now argues before the Supreme Court that he did not receive a fair trial as a result of the prosecution suppressing evidence of a key prosecution witness’s testimony. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in hearing the appeal due to his prior involvement in the appeals process while serving on a lower court.