Justice for Cory Maples

When even conservative Supreme Court justices express sympathy for a death row inmate, it’s a good bet that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. That’s the case with Cory Maples, a convicted murderer from Alabama, who missed a deadline for an appeal because a notice sent to his two lawyers was sent back marked “return to sender.” At oral arguments this week, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked the lawyer for the state of Alabama: “Mr. Maples has lost his right to appeal through no fault of his own through a series of very unusual and unfortunate circumstances.... Why push this technical argument?”

Maples had been convicted of shooting two friends to death after a night of drinking. After his conviction, he unsuccessfully filed a petition for relief, claiming that his trial lawyer had failed to investigate or offer evidence about his mental health history, his intoxication at the time of his crime and his alcohol and drug history. Maples’ new lawyers in New York — and a local counsel — were sent a notice informing them that Maples had 42 days to file a further appeal. None responded (the New York lawyers had left their firm). The state refused to give Maples another chance to file an appeal.

Maples’ story is a particularly egregious example of injustice by a state, and perhaps he will finally find relief. But vast numbers of questionable decisions involving convicted murderers never make it to the Supreme Court. That is because the court’s primary objective in selecting cases for review is not the redress of individual grievances but the shaping of the law in general. (The justices do typically get involved when an execution is imminent, but that is no consolation for inmates who are kept on death row, ineligible for lighter punishment, because of official errors.)

It is unreasonable to expect the Supreme Court to address every injustice experienced by death row inmates. The surer way to eliminate those errors is to abolish capital punishment. Although the conventional wisdom is that repeal is politically unpopular, New Jersey abolished the death penalty in 2007 and Illinois followed suit this year. California should join them. According to a new Field Poll, although 68% of Californians want the death penalty to remain on the books, 48% say they would prefer that someone convicted of first-degree murder be sentenced to life without parole, compared with 40% who would choose execution.

The overriding reason for abolishing capital punishment is that it is morally offensive. Other civilized nations long ago recognized that taking a human life, even that of a convicted murderer, is barbaric. But it also has been established that the administration of capital punishment, like the criminal justice system in general, is marred by mistakes. Even when they don’t lead to the execution of the innocent, these errors can consign prisoners to death row who don’t belong there. It’s always welcome when the Supreme Court rectifies one of those errors, but the best remedy is abolition.