Mr. Hutchins told me a little bit
about his most recent representation, which started around 2011
and has included help from others at all stages along the way. It
involved investigation and preparation for a bench trial that took
place in February 2013. The long,
involved post-hearing briefing process took about a year. The judge
ruled earlier this year in March
2016, adverse to his client. The
case is now moving through the
next procedural phase of the state
habeas process, with briefing at the
Georgia Supreme Court that began
with an application for a certificate
of probable cause to appeal. The
Georgia Attorney General’s office
filed its response in opposition on
October 3, 2016.
In response to my question about
what he has learned from his habeas work, he said: “That someone getting convicted of a capital
crime is most often the result of a
really complicated situation. People
don’t find themselves in this situation because of something that
just happened overnight. It’s not as
simple as the news media makes it
out to be. There are a lot of factors
that result in someone being faced
with the death penalty. It doesn’t
start the day that the alleged crime
takes place. It usually starts long
before that. Then once someone is
charged with capital murder, there
are many, many aspects of the case
that can be an impediment to the
administration of justice. There are
a lot of moving parts in a capital
murder case, and there is a lot of
room for error—both by the defendants’ lawyers, the prosecution
and the court.”
Finally, I spoke with Atlanta Bar
member Lisa Heller. Ms. Heller
practices complex business litigation at Robbins Ross Alloy Belinfante Littlefield LLC. In addition
to trial and appellate work in state
one person doing it. It’s a team.”
Toward the end of the federal
habeas process for Mr. DeYoung,
issues regarding the drugs used in
lethal injections were becoming
more prevalent. Ms. Heller became
“[S]omeone getting convicted of a
capital crime is most often the result
of a really complicated situation.
People don’t find themselves in this
situation because of something that
just happened overnight."
and federal courts on a range of
issues, she also has considerable
class action experience. She began
her pro bono habeas work around
1998, when she reached out to the
Georgia Resource Center.
After reviewing a few cases sent to
her by the Georgia Resource Center,
Ms. Heller accepted the representation of Andrew Grant DeYoung.
Although it appeared that she would
have ample time to begin working, the State of Georgia had other
ideas: it signed an execution warrant shortly afterwards. “You don’t
have a case where there’s more at
stake,” she told me. That began an
approximately eleven-year process, including argument before
the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit. Ultimately,
Mr. DeYoung was executed by the
State of Georgia in 2011.
involved in another case after Mr.
DeYoung’s execution that involved
the issue of execution drugs. She,
along with many from the team that
had helped with Mr. DeYoung’s case,
briefed the issue of whether the
Department of Corrections could
keep secret changes to the execution
protocol, rather than publish the
information and respond to citizens
who participated in a public comment period. Ms. Heller also argued
on this issue before the Georgia
Supreme Court.
There are many other stories from
Atlanta Bar members quietly engaged in this important work. But
not enough. Justice Benham’s call
remains just as relevant today as
when he made it twenty years ago.
If you are interested in learning
more, a great place to start is the
American Bar Association’s Death
Penalty Representation Project.
Like those mentioned earlier, Ms.
Heller remarked on the help she
received from others. “It’s never
The Official News Publication of the Atlanta Bar Association THE ATLANTA LAWYER
25