Below are links to the legal briefs and court decisions in Troy Davis' case with the most recent stage of filings appearing first.
In the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)
On August 17, 2009, the SCOTUS remanded the case to the Georgia Southern District Court and ordered an evidentiary hearing to determine whether new evidence clearly establishes Davis' innocence.
2009 briefing on Davis' freestanding innocence claim under the Court's original jurisdiction
In the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
On April 16, 2009, Davis lost by one vote, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied relief on procedural grounds
In this document, Mr. Davis explains why his compelling evidence of innocence warrants the filing of a second habeas petition.
If the 11th Circuit grants permission to file, this is the petition that will be filed in the District Court.
On October 24, 2008, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay and ordered both parties to brief four issues.
- Whether Mr. Davis previously raised a freestanding innocence claim under Herrera.
- Whether Mr. Davis' attorneys been diligent in bringing this claim.
- Whether Mr. Davis' attorneys established a prima facia case of innocence.
- Whether Mr. Davis can be executed if his attorneys established innocence, but failed to act diligently in bringing the claim.
Mr. Davis' attorneys argue that this is the first time Mr. Davis has made a "freestanding" innocence claim; that the attorneys were diligent in presenting the Herrera claim because they were required to exhaust their state remedies first; that the evidence of innocence presented is compelling and meets the requirements; and that a freestanding claim of innocence under Herrera cannot be barred by procedural default. (Note the name Sylvester "Redd" Coles is redacted from this document. That is the only redaction.)
Here, the A.G. responds to Davis' arguments by suggesting that the attorneys waited too long to file this Herrera claim and that the evidence is not compelling enough to warrant further court review. The A.G. also advises the Court that even if it were to find that there is sufficient evidence of innocence, the lawyers' failure to act diligently preclude the Court from hearing Davis' evidence.
In the Georgia Supreme Court
Appeal of the Denial of the Extraordinary Motion for New Trial
-
-
-
-
-
Harvard's Amicus Brief (PDF not available at this time)
Motion for Reconsideration
On March 17, 2008, Mr. Davis lost by one vote (4/3) in the Georgia Supreme Court
Petition for Certiorari to U.S. Supreme Court denie on October 14, 2008
|