The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could simplify the process for prisoners seeking to amend their habeas corpus petitions. The case, filed by Texas prisoner Danny Richard Rivers, highlights his claim that his trial lawyer was impaired by alcohol and failed to present critical evidence, which could have affected his conviction.
Rivers, serving a 38-year sentence for child pornography possession and child abuse, filed his petition for certiorari in June. He contends that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996 improperly limits prisoners’ ability to amend their petitions with new evidence.
At the heart of the case is the question of whether a request to amend a habeas petition based on newly discovered evidence qualifies as a “second or successive” petition under Section 2244 of the AEDPA. This issue has led to a split between appellate circuits, with different courts interpreting the statute in conflicting ways.
