The Supreme Court on Monday pressed lawyers about federal funding in a case concerning ineffective lawyers that could affect whether Carlos Manuel Ayestas lives or dies.
Ayestas v. Davis arrived at the Supreme Court from Harris County, Texas, which is a county that has produced three death penalty cases for the high court in the past year, according to Western Michigan University law professor Mary Phelan D’Isa’s preview of the case.
A Texas court sentenced Ayestas, a Honduran man, to death in 1997 after his conviction for murdering Santiago Paneque during the burglary of her home in Texas. Ayestas appealed his case multiple times with different lawyers in state and federal courts, saying that his trial attorney did not do a reasonable investigation that would have revealed “available and abundant” evidence of mitigating factors.
Ayestas sought a rehearing in light of a 2012 Supreme Court decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy that said an attorney’s errors in court proceedings after a conviction do not give the courts a reason to excuse procedural defaults.
Ayestas filed a motion for investigative assistance that he deemed was “reasonably necessary,” as required by the law, to prove his claims.
The federal courts, including the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, disagreed and told Ayestas funding would have been available to him if the lower court found a “substantial need” for the funds.
Ayestas’ counsel has argued that the 5th Circuit’s “substantial need” test contradicts the “reasonably necessary” language of the statute regarding legal representation for a needy defendant.
Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch repeatedly pressed Ayestas’ attorney, Lee Kovarsky, about the difference between the terms “substantial need” and “reasonably necessary.”
Kovarsky attempted to dodge Alito’s questions by claiming to know what Congress meant when it used the word “necessary” in the statute, but Alito’s retort of “really?” drew laughter from the courtroom. When Alito asked directly about the difference between the terms, Kovarsky indicated he wanted to “scrap the labels for a minute,” but Alito stopped him and said, “Don’t do that.”
Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller began his argument countering Ayestas’ attorney by arguing, “There’s no meaningful difference between ‘reasonably necessary’ and ‘substantial need.’”
Representing Lorie Davis of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Keller argued that the case was about a claim of federal funding, which prompted swift pushback from the high court’s ideological left-leaning justices.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she did not think the case was about a funding issue, but about the amount of funding and Justice Stephen Breyer told Keller, “Obviously, I’m skeptical of your argument.”
Justice Elena Kagan asked Keller incredulously, “What better purposes would you want to spend your money on?” and Ginsburg noted that the case may present a route to Ayestas’ “only chance” at survival.
Throughout all of the back-and-forth with both attorneys, Kennedy sat silent. Kennedy authored the high court’s 7-2 majority opinion in 2012 that Ayestas’ relied upon to push his case before the justices Monday.
