Democratic lawmaker reintroduces death row appeals bill, allowing introduction of newly discovered evidence

Georgia Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson has reintroduced a death row appeals bill that would allow death row inmates the opportunity to present newly discovered evidence in their appeal.

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

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

TEXAS DEATH ROW ATTORNEY SAYS 'THERE WAS NO CRIME' AS HE MAKES A LAST EFFORT TO SAVE HIS LIFE

Under current law, a federal court cannot grant a writ of habeas corpus 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 state courts a full and fair opportunity to resolve federal constitutional claims before those claims are brought before the federal courts.”

Representative Hank Johnson of Georgia has reintroduced a death row appeals bill that would allow death row inmates the opportunity to present newly discovered evidence in their appeal. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

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

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

OKLAHOMA AG SUPPORTS RETRIAL FOR DEATH ROW INMATE WHO HAD 3 'LAST MEALS'

“I believe we should abolish the death penalty completely, but although 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 carry out state executions – America needs of the Effective Death Penalty Appeals Act to help wrongfully convicted people on death row present newly discovered evidence that they are innocent,” Johnson said in the statement.

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

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

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

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

Defenders of Richard Glossip

Anti-death penalty activists, including members of MoveOn.org and other advocacy groups, demonstrate in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in an attempt to stop the execution of Oklahoma inmate Richard Glossip on September 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 because the prosecution suppressed evidence from the testimony of a key prosecution witness. Judge Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the appeal hearing due to his prior involvement in the appeals process while serving on a trial court.