Latest News

SAVE THE DATE: May 28-31, 2026
Atlanta, GA

The Twenty-Third National Seminar on the Development and Integration of Mitigating Evidence in Capital Cases

Program Description

Registration is now open for the 2026 Capital Mitigation Skills Workshop.  For information about the program and the registration process, see the Upcoming Seminars tab, above. 

SAVE THE DATE

The Persuasion Institute: A Workshop in Legal Storytelling and Narrative Constructions for Capital Post-Conviction Counsel
June 29 - July 1, 2026
Cornell Law School
Ithaca, NY
 

Registration will open in March

This unique and innovative program was designed by Professor Anthony G. Amsterdam, together with HAT counsel, to improve habeas advocacy by teaching participants techniques that can be used in persuasive oral and written advocacy, including the effective use of narrative tools such as the “elements” of story, theme choice, plot, setting, perspective, and sequence. This will be accomplished in a non-traditional manner by bringing together capital post-conviction attorneys, professional non-fiction, and fiction writers, and legal as well as literary academics working together in developing and conveying to participants persuasive advocacy techniques in a combined lecture, group brainstorming session and small group discussion formats.

SAVE THE DATE

Capital Mitigation Skills Workshop
January 15-18, 2026
The University of Texas at Austin School of Law
Austin, TX

Registration will open in late October 2025

Program Description

The Sixteenth Capital Mitigation Skills Workshop, which began in 2012, will consist of a combination of lectures and interactive exercises designed to develop the basic skills required in the development of mitigation evidence in death penalty cases. Utilizing a case hypothetical, participants will brainstorm about potential mitigation themes and identify “red flags” requiring investigation. Life-history records will also be reviewed to identify these mitigation themes, hypotheses, questions, and investigative follow-up.  Interviewing exercises in small groups will cover a variety of areas, including trauma, the signs and symptoms of mental disorders, and cognitive impairments and adaptive deficits. Participants will be asked to interview a variety of different witnesses, including the client and to draft a declaration.  The seminar will also emphasize the importance of case organization and provide a sample of a basic mitigation tool kit (including genograms and chronologies).

On August 7, 2025, the Department of Justice will publish in the Federal Register a request for comments to the applications by Alabama and Tennessee for certification that their capital post-conviction counsel mechanisms comply with the requirements of Chapter 154 of title 28, United States Code, which provides special procedures for federal habeas corpus review of cases brought by indigent prisoners in State custody who are subject to capital sentences.

On June 6, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the certiorari petition of the Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections in the case of Hamm v. Smith, 24-872.  The respondent, Joseph Smith, was found entitled to relief on his Atkins claim by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Smith v. Commissioner, 2024 WL 4793028 (11th Cir.), following an earlier remand from the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court constructed the question presented: "Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim."

Click here to view the commissioner's certiorari petition.

SAVE THE DATE          

July 17-20, 2025
Cincinnati, OH

30th ANNUAL NATIONAL FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS SEMINAR (NHS)

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This year marks the 30th Anniversary of the National Habeas Seminar, the only program of its kind focusing on representation in capital habeas cases in toto and open to Attorneys of all experience levels working in Capital Habeas Units, CJA Panel Attorneys and others who represent death sentenced inmates in federal habeas corpus proceedings. Among other topics, experienced Supreme Court Advocates and Capital Habeas Practitioners will address the impact of this term's Supreme Court decisions (and cases currently pending in the Court) on capital post-conviction and clemency practice, as well as sessions addressing new developments and trends in the federal courts of appeal and other state and federal courts relating to the application of AEDPA. There will also be sessions on emerging trends in capital cases where intellectual disability, competency or other aspects of a client's mental health or cognitive abilities are at issue. The program will likewise address new legislative initiatives and administrative actions that may affect capital habeas representation. For those new to capital post-conviction practice, the program offers an introductory track. Individual case consultations will also be available, upon request, to persons attending the seminar.

Registration will open by late April.

On February 25, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Glossip v. Oklahoma, 604 U.S. ___, ruling that "the prosecution violated its obligations under Napue [v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959)]," entitling Richard Glossip to a new trial.  The Napue violation concerned the prosecutor's failure to correct false testimony by the key prosecution witness about the reasons for his lithium prescription.  Although the state court had held that Glossip's claims were procedurally barred under Oklahoma's Post-Conviction Procedures Act (PCPA), this was not an independent state ground precluding federal review because the state court's application of the procedural bar was contingent in its conclusion that the state Attorney General's concession of federal constitutional error was baseless.   

Effective January 17, 2025, United States Attorney General Garland denied Arizona's application for certification that it was compliant with the requirements for the expedited federal habeas corpus procedures in Chapter 154 of title 28 of the United States Code.  Click here to view the notice of the denial.  

One of the requirements of Chapter 154 is that a State has "established a mechanism for the appointment, compensation, and payment of reasonable litigation expenses of competent counsel in State postconviction proceedings brought by indigent prisoners who have been sentenced to death." 28 U.S.C. 2265(a).   After having reviewed Arizona’s submissions pursuant to the governing statute and regulations, Attorney General Garland "determine[d] that the record does not demonstrate that [Arizona's] postconviction capital counsel mechanism adequately provides for the compensation of counsel."  Arizona had "declined to address public comments questioning the sufficiency of its $100 maximum hourly rate for capital counsel, nor did it respond to any of the Department’s requests for information on that issue."   Although then-Attorney General Barr concluded in 2020 that Arizona’s compensation mechanism satisfied the “otherwise reasonably designed” criterion of 28 CFR 26.22(c)(2), "intervening developments have unsettled the basis on which he reached that determination."  

Based on the recent rates of inflation, Arizona’s $100 maximum hourly rate has lost approximately 20 percent of its purchasing power since then-Attorney General Barr’s assessment, see U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI Inflation Calculator,

https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm (last visited Jan. 12, 2025) (“Inflation Calculator”), and would likely continue to diminish in value over the 5-year certification period, 28 CFR 26.23(e).

On November 4, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion vacating the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit that affirmed a grant of habeas relief to Alabama death row inmate Joseph Smith on his Atkins claim and remanding for  further consideration.  Hamm v. Smith, 604 U.S. ___ (Nov. 4, 2024) .  Smith had obtained five full-scale IQ scores, ranging from 72 to 78.  Because his claim of intellectual disability depend s in part on whether his IQ is 70 or below, analyzing Smith’s intellectual functioning "requires evaluating his various IQ scores" and the Su preme Court has not yet "specified how courts should evaluate multiple IQ scores."  The District Court found that Smith’s IQ could be as low as 69 given the standard error of measurement for his lowest score of 72 and granted relief.  In affirming the grant of relief, it was unclear to the Su preme Court whether the Eleventh Circuit afforded conclusive weight to the fact that the lower end of the standard-error range for Smith’s lowest IQ score is 69.  If so, the appeals court's "analysis would suggest a per se rule that the lower end of the standard-error range for an offender’s lowest score is dispositive."  On the other hand, "the Eleventh Circuit also approvingly cited the District Court’s determination that Smith’s lowest score is not an outlier when considered together with his higher scores. That analysis would suggest a more holistic approach to multiple IQ scores that considers the relevant evidence, including as appropriate any relevant expert testimony."   Because of this lack of clarity and because the Supreme Court's "ultimate assessment of any petition for certiorari by the State may depend on the basis for the Eleventh Circuit’s decision," the State's petition for certiorari is granted, the Eleventh Circuit's judgment is vacated, and the case  is remanded "for further consideration consistent with this opinion."  Justices Thomas and Gorsuch would have granted the certiorari petition and set the case for argument.