If Rivers had been in a different appellate circuit, such as the Second Circuit, his case may have played out differently. In the Second Circuit, courts do not apply the AEDPA restrictions until a prisoner has exhausted their initial habeas petition. This would have allowed Rivers to present his new evidence without facing the same legal barriers.
Given the split in how different appellate courts handle this issue, Rivers has asked the Supreme Court to step in and resolve the conflict. He argues that if he were incarcerated in a state like New York, his new evidence would have been considered, providing him with a potential path to relief.
Rivers is represented by a team from Sidley Austin LLP, while the Texas Department of Criminal Justice is defending the case through the Texas Attorney General’s Office. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the future of habeas corpus petitions and prisoners’ access to justice.
The case is Danny Rivers v. Bobby Lumpkin, case number 23-1345, and will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
