Brief of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner-Appellant.
Argument: Walters’ counsel’s utter failure to communicate constructively denied him counsel so prejudice should be presumed. Alternatively, Mr. Walters established prejudice under Strickland and Frye resulting from his counsel’s pervasive neglect. There is a reasonable probability that the favorable March plea offer would have been accepted and entered if counsel had communicated with Mr. Walters. If Mr. Stanley’s deficient performance is instead viewed as a series of separate errors, Strickland compels a cumulative consideration of prejudice.
Table of Contents Included in Document
Memorandum in Support of Habeas Petition in Child Sex Abuse Case
Open Records Request
Letter to Defense Expert
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Moiton for New Trial
Motion for Issuance and Enforcement of Subpoena for Additional Medical Records
Ruling on Motion for New Trial and Ruling by Georgia Court of Appeals
Argument: With proper investigation, preparation, and presentation by the defense in this case, there is absolutely overwhelming evidence that supports Mr. Nowill's total innocence. Mr. Nowill is presently seven years into the service of his sentence of thirty years in prison because, to date, no sitting judge or sitting jury had presented to them the complete evidence in this case for their consideration. Mr. Nowill is, in fact, innocent.
Mr. Nowill is the father of the alleged victim, Heather Nowill. On August 13, 2000, Heather, then aged 16, claimed that her father had been having a sexual relationship with her over the previous four years since she was 12 years old. She claimed this sexual relationship involved digital penetration of her vagina, mutual oral sex between she and her father, and full acts of sexual intercourse with complete and full penetration of her vagina by her father's penis occurring 3 to 4 times weekly for the duration of the 4 year period of time. Stunned when he first confronted with these allegations on the day of her outcry, and continuing for 2 years including his testimony before the jury in this case, Mr. Nowill denied any sexual contact with his daughter and consistently has maintained his innocence.
On the day of her alleged outcry Heather was required to undergo a medical examination at University Hospital. The complete report of this examination was not provided to trial counsel by the State. Trial counsel did not independently request of subpoena the medical records of the examination. The State did not call the doctors who performed the medical examination to testify in the trial. Also, despite the extensive and ongoing allegations of intercourse by Heather, trial counsel did not request or subpoena the medical records from her regular doctor throughout the period of time in question. With virtually nothing except the word of the alleged victim the case proceeded to trial. Even law enforcement personnel admitted there was absolutely no physical evidence to support the allegation.
Brief of Amicus Curiae the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Supporting Respondent.
Argument: The Questions presented do not subsume the issue of whether, under § 2254(d)(1), the state decision involved an “unreasonable application” of federal law. Section 2254(d)(1)’s “unreasonable application” clause reaches applications of clearly established federal law that are either too broad or too narrow. When a court analyzes a reasoned opinion under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), it asks whether the decision is objectively unreasonable. Federal court does not formulate hypothetical justifications for the state court outcome if the state decision provides a written account of its reasons. Harrington’s “fairminded disagreement” language does not resuscitate the “no reasonable jurist” standard rejected in Williams.