More than a decade ago, Cory Maples of Alabama murdered two people. After an evening of heavy drinking, playing pool, and riding around in a friend’s car, Maples killed two friends, shooting them execution-style.

According to court documents, he signed a confession, “stating that he: (1) shot both victims around midnight; (2) had drunk six or seven beers by about 8 p.m., but ‘didn’t feel very drunk’; and (3) did not know why he decided to kill the two men. Faced with this confession, Maples’s trial attorneys argued that Maples was guilty of murder, but not capital murder.”

A jury found Maples guilty and sentenced him to death.

Maples appealed his capital murder conviction with the help of attorneys at Sullivan & Cromwell:

Maples subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 32, claiming, inter alia, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate or present evidence of: (1) Maples’s mental health history; (2) his intoxication at the time of the crime; and (3) his alcohol and drug history.

The trial court dismissed Maples’ Rule 32 petition, and sent notice of the decision to the attorneys at Sullivan & Cromwell and to local Alabama counsel. There was a 42-day period for filing a notice of appeal, but all the lawyers involved dropped the ball on the case, PepsiCo-style.

So what’s the explanation for S&C’s missing the deadline for filing an appeal?

On Monday, the Supreme Court ordered a federal trial judge to take a closer look at the murder case against Troy Anthony Davis, a Georgia death row inmate. The SCOTUS directed the district judge to “receive testimony and make findings of fact as to whether evidence that could have been obtained at the time of trial clearly establishes [Davis’] innocence.”

Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented. Justice Scalia questioned the viability of Davis’s claim of actual innocence, then went one step further. Even if Davis might be “actually” innocent, he’s SOL:

This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.

This bold pronouncement caught the attention of Professor Alan Dershowitz, back at Justice Scalia’s alma mater, Harvard Law School. From “Scalia’s Catholic Betrayal,” over at The Daily Beast:

Let us be clear precisely what [Scalia’s dissent] means. If a defendant were convicted, after a constitutionally unflawed trial, of murdering his wife, and then came to the Supreme Court with his very much alive wife at his side, and sought a new trial based on newly discovered evidence (namely that his wife was alive), these two justices would tell him, in effect: “Look, your wife may be alive as a matter of fact, but as a matter of constitutional law, she’s dead, and as for you, Mr. Innocent Defendant, you’re dead, too, since there is no constitutional right not to be executed merely because you’re innocent.”

It would be shocking enough for any justice of the Supreme Court to issue such a truly outrageous opinion, but it is particularly indefensible for Justices Scalia and Thomas, both of whom claim to be practicing Catholics, bound by the teaching of their church, to do moral justice. Justice Scalia has famously written, in the May 2002 issue of the conservative journal First Things, that if the Constitution compelled him to do something that was absolutely prohibited by mandatory Catholic rules, he would have no choice but to resign from the Supreme Court.

So should Justice Scalia resign? The Dersh isn’t saying that — yet.

But he does have a challenge for Nino.

* A dramatic closer look at Wolf Block’s collapse. [Philadelphia Magazine]

* The media buzz this week on Sotomayor: Her decision in the New Haven firefighters case could be a key issue during her confirmation hearings. [USA Today]

* Minnesota’s Supreme Court will hear arguments today in the Coleman—Franken election race. Yes, it is still going on. [Wall Street Journal]

* GM files for bankruptcy today. Wasn’t it always just a matter of time? [Associated Press]

* U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Arthur Gonzalez has approved Chrysler’s sale of most of its business to Fiat. [Bloomberg]

* A Georgia man is facing execution for murdering an off-duty cop in 1989, even though seven out of the nine witnesses have recanted their testimony. Should SCOTUS intervene? [New York Times]

One thing that has become clear to me since I started at ATL is that people in prison have a lot of time on their hands. A lot of time. We regularly receive handwritten letters from pro se litigants complaining that the judge who sent them to prison is “above the law.”

Michael Lambrix has been held on death row for over 25 years. Now, he wants to serve on the Florida Supreme Court. “Mike” describes himself on his website (doinglifeondeathrow.com) like this:

Born and raised in Marin County, CA I have now been held hostage on Florida’s death row over 25 years….

My spiritual faith and a healthy (if not a bit twisted) sense of humor have been my strength while the hope of spending time with my 3 children and grandson is my goal….

By nature I am easy going, hard to anger, and quick to forgive - even to a fault. Although spiritual by nature, I’ve grown disgusted by organized religion. For the same reasons I’m disgusted by organized politics — both have become institutions corrupted by man’s arrogance and greed.

Who better to deal with man’s arrogance and greed than a humble convicted felon? It makes sense to Mike. In his application to fill a vacancy on Florida’s highest court, Mike makes his best (handwritten) case:

I would now request that I be considered for nomination and in all fairness I would ask that you do not so quickly discount my genuine desire to become a Justice on the Florida Supreme Court. As a longtime (albeit involuntary!) citizen of the state of Florida I believe I am entitled to due consideration, and the following facts show that I am uniquely qualified to be a Justice on the court.

As for that pesky capital offense?

Of course, I do understand… there would be a predictable measure of reservation to my appointment, but to hell with the public. It’s the governor’s providence to appoint anyone he so chooses, and if the narrow minded public doesn’t like it, they can always vote me off the court in 6 years when I come up for a “retention vote.”

Before you “quickly discount” Mike’s appointment, give due consideration to the fact that we are talking about the state of Florida.

Read Mike’s full application, after the jump.

No, not really. The sensationalist headline of this post is issued with tongue planted firmly in cheek.

But yes, the U.S. Supreme Court just handed down two big opinions, ruling in favor of Exxon (vacating the Ninth Circuit’s affirmance of the $2.5 billion punitive damages award to victims of the Exxon Valdez oil spill) and a child rapist (holding that imposing the death penalty for child rape, in a case where defendant’s acts were not intended to cause death, violates the Eighth Amendment).

Still at large: Heller, the D.C. gun control case. Tom Goldstein speculates that Justice Scalia will be writing the principal opinion.

For more on today’s rulings, see the links below. If you have an opinion on them, please share it in the comments.

LiveBlog: Opinions | 6.25.08 [SCOTUSblog]
Supreme Court Rejects Death Penalty for Child Rape [AP]
Justices Cut Damages Award in Exxon Valdez Spill [AP]

* China and Iran lead the world in executions, according to Amnesty International’s annual report on the death penalty. The U.S. comes in fifth worldwide. [AP]

* Gun control efforts build momentum at the state level. [New York Times]

* Some women return to the Texas polygamist ranch; judge seeks lawyers to represent children in upcoming custody battles. [CNN]

* Author J.K. Rowling holds her own while testifying before a crowd of Manhattan muggles. (Hopefully she won’t sue us for using the word “muggle.”) [WSJ Law Blog; WSJ Law Blog]

* Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, a past Lawyer of the Day, remains in a bitter impasse with the Detroit city council. [New York Times]

* Supreme Court justices tap their former clerks to pick up “orphaned” arguments — arguments in cases where “the respondent abandons the lower court decision that the petitioner is challenging.” [Legal Times]

* Legal restrictions on gifts to universities can generate quirky results years later. [New York Times]

* NFL Union president prepared for strike. [ESPN]

* Microsoft offers to acquire Yahoo for $44.6 billion to compete with Google. [MSNBC]

* Times reporter subpoenaed over “State of War” source. [New York Times]

* French President and supermodel girlfriend sue over pictures. [Washington Post via WSJ Law Blog]

* HLS grad Obama and YLS grad Clinton make nice, sort of, during debate. [MSNBC]

* SCOTUS stays Alabama execution, maintaining de facto moratorium on death penalty. [CNN]

* Roy Tolles and Arthur Kramer, of Munger Tolles and Kramer Levin, respectively, RIP. [WSJ Law Blog]

This has been all over the news. We like the ABA Journal’s version, ‘cause it’s the crispest:

The Atlanta judge overseeing the prosecution of alleged courthouse shooter Brian Nichols has stepped aside from the case after he was quoted [in a New Yorker article] as saying, “Everyone in the world knows he did it.”

The New Yorker piece was by one of our idols, prosecutor-turned-writer Jeffrey Toobin (who launched our blogging career, with this Talk of the Town piece). Judge Fuller and Jeff Toobin were interviewed by the Fulton County Daily Report about the controversy:

“I had a specific agreement with Toobin,” said Fuller on Tuesday, before announcing his recusal. “Our conversation was to be on background only, and there would be no direct quotations or attributions, unless they were floated by me first.”

Not so, said Toobin, reached in New York. “I don’t know what to say,” he said. “I mean, it was clearly for attribution; we even had a New Yorker fact-checker call and confirm it. … I have great respect for Judge Fuller, but that was not at all my understanding.”

We’re with the meticulous Toobin on this one. In fact, we share the suspicion of one of the correspondents who wrote us about this story: Was Judge Fuller’s indiscretion intentional? Was it his way of getting out from under a long and complex nightmare of a case?

Judge Recuses From Courthouse Shooting Case Due to New Yorker Quotes [ABA Journal]
Judge Fuller recuses from Nichols case [Fulton County Daily Report]
Judge in Courthouse Shooting Case Steps Down [New York Times]
Death in Georgia [The New Yorker]
New Yorker Quote Leads to Atlanta Judge Recusal [WSJ Law Blog]

* So, it’s gonna be illegal now, which means the CIA can’t do it, right? [Washington Post via How Appealing]

* New Jersey gets rid of the death penalty; now if they could just tackle that disgusting odor. [BBC]

* Prosecutors go 0-1-6 in Sears Tower trial. [CNN]

* Hey, look everybody! International law! They’ve got a court with judges and lawyers and stuff, and they even issue rulings! Just like it’s real! That’s cute. ICJ upholds treaty giving islands to Colombia. [Jurist]

* Hollywood writers take this strike thing up a notch. [AP via Reno Gazette-Journal]

Because it’s much better to have a toy manufacturer as an enemy than an angry mob of club-wielding Sudanese. Here’s the latest news about the whole “Teddy Bear named Mohammed” controversy, from the Daily Mail (via Drudge):

Thousands of Islamic fanatics wielding clubs and knives are marching through the streets of Khartoum demanding the execution of teddy bear teacher Gillian Gibbons.

As the mother-of-two started a 15-day prison term, protestors left mosques across the Sudanese capital to denounce the “lenient verdict” and call for the death penalty.

For those of you who haven’t been following the story, here’s some background:

Mrs Gibbons, a divorced mother-of-two, was arrested on Sunday and on Wednesday charged with insulting Islam, inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs.

It came after seven-year-old pupils chose to call a teddy bear Mohammed at the Unity High School in Khartoum, where she had worked since August.

During the court case behind closed doors yesterday it was revealed that the school’s office assistant, Sara Khawad, had complained to the education authorities - leading to the teacher’s arrest.

In a statement read to court, Mrs Gibbons tearfully stressed she had not meant to cause offence and pointed out that it had been her pupils who had chosen the name.

Executing someone for naming a Teddy Bear “Mohammed” might raise an Eighth Amendment issue. But we don’t think they have that over in Sudan.

Thousands of Islamic fanatics wielding knives demand jailed teddy bear teacher is executed [Daily Mail]

[Although legal in nature, this story is not typical ATL fare — it’s a bit too, well, substantive. But we suspect that some of you will have strong opinions on it. So we’re tossing it out for discussion, in the hopes of inspiring a comment clusterf**k.]

Does the death penalty serve as an effective deterrent to murder? Up until now, we’ve generally subscribed to the liberal view that its deterrence value is questionable. But a fascinating article by one of our favorite legal reporters, Yale Law grad Adam Liptak — who writes for the New York Times, no conservative hack publication — raises some interesting questions:

For the first time in a generation, the question of whether the death penalty deters murders has captured the attention of scholars in law and economics, setting off an intense new debate about one of the central justifications for capital punishment.

According to roughly a dozen recent studies, executions save lives. For each inmate put to death, the studies say, 3 to 18 murders are prevented.

The effect is most pronounced, according to some studies, in Texas and other states that execute condemned inmates relatively often and relatively quickly.

Check out this quote:

“I personally am opposed to the death penalty,” said H. Naci Mocan, an economist at Louisiana State University and an author of a study finding that each execution saves five lives. “But my research shows that there is a deterrent effect.”

More after the jump.

* Judge Mark Filip (N.D. Ill.) picked to be Mukasey’s deputy. [AP via How Appealing]

* SCOTUS stays Florida execution like I said they would. [New York Times]

* Hmm…Bush administration didn’t properly consider impact of climate change…. shocking. [New York Times; Washington Post]

* Hillary Clinton takes the gloves off, giving “her most commanding performance to date” in last night’s debate. [The Atlantic (Marc Ambinder)]

* Family to sue NYC over staph death. [CNN]

* Nader sues DNC for trying to win 2004 Presidential election conspiring against him in 2004. [AP via Breitbart]

* Should law school be more like business school? [WSJ Law Blog]

* Georgia to $336,000 in child support! [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

* Yep, de facto moratorium. [New York Times]

* The war on punitive damages continues. [USA Today via How Appealing]

* Suspect from Burning Man burning to burn something else. [Reno Gazette-Journal]

* Senators want clarification from Mukasey on waterboarding. [Jurist]

* Lerach pleads guilty. [Los Angeles Times]

* Do we have a de facto moratorium on executions pending this term’s SCOTUS lethal injection case? We should find out today. [New York Times]

* Clarence Darrow? How cliche. Anywho, this guy is now a New Mexico Supreme Court justice. [Albuquerque Journal (free trial pass required) and New Mexico Business Weekly, via How Appealing]

* Step 1: Stop killing monks. [Jurist]

* Death for the death penalty? [New York Times]

* Latham lawyer DQ’ed in KPMG trial. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Thomas in the ATL. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

* So how did Michael Mukasey do yesterday? Here’s a collection of some coverage. [How Appealing (linkwrap)]

* He totally should have mailed it to himself before faxing it to the Ravens. Also, not a joke, just a fact: the caption is over half of this 37-page opinion. [U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (PDF) via How Appealing]

* How many businesses was Vick opening? Yet another bank sues him over a business loan. [Fulton County Daily Report]

* Speaking of Vick getting sued, he got sued by a South Carolina inmate again, and it’s not Jonathan Lee Riches. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

* Can’t we all just agree that a little less process is due in this case? [CNN]

* SCOTUS stays Virginia execution. [CNN]

* Didn’t they just execute somebody with an electric chair? And this is what gets them in trouble with the Constitution? [Jurist]

* Mel Weiss to be indicted. [New York Times]

* Oh, Al Sharpton, you’re incorrigible. [CNN]

* Judge withdraws jury instruction in Spector case; has he set up an easy appeal if there’s a conviction? [CNN]

* Mandated calorie watching is struck down. [AP; New York Times]

* Mortgage lenders’ ads may violate FCC FTC rules. [MSNBC]

* Former Philippine prez gets 40-year prison sentence. [New York Times]

* China agrees to prohibit lead paint in children’s toys… [AP via MSNBC]

* Tennessee uses the chair for first time since 1960. [CNN]

* Nurse sues Pacman. [Reno-Gazette Journal]

* Defense rests in Spector trial. [CNN]

* Patent infringers in less treble. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Yeah, I’m sure Texas is going to stop killing people because Europe wants them to. [Jurist]

* State charges for Vick too? [AP via Yahoo!]

* Who let the dogs fight? Who? Who? Feds say: football star Michael Vick. [CNN; TSG]

* Bar-Bri class reps (no, different class reps): No incentive payments for you. [The Recorder]

* Seven-figure legal bills: par for the course for white-collar criminal defendants. [WSJ Law Blog]

* India market hot for law firms. [Law.com]

* Billionaire Siebel gets California Supreme Court’s ok to sue lawyer and judge despite settlement. [The Recorder]

* UK girl loses fight to wear purity ring at school. Chastity belt still under review. [MSNBC]

* Ohio Turnpike murder-for-hire case could result in death sentence. [CNN]