OLP184 - Certification of Cap. Counsel Mech. FL and MS pub. 2026_04_29 at 91 FR 23116

The Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center, a national nonprofit civil rights organization, opposes Mississippi Attorney General Fitch’s application for certification of the state's capital counsel mechanism. They argue that the state's system fails to meet federal standards for timeliness, universal application, qualification, compensation, and litigation expenses, citing a history of excessive caseloads and inadequate funding.

The Federal Public Defender for the Western District of North Carolina, specifically its Capital Habeas Unit, opposes the certification of Mississippi’s state capital counsel mechanism. They argue that the certification would impose procedural barriers and shortened deadlines that would effectively make federal habeas corpus review unavailable for death-sentenced prisoners in Mississippi.

The Federal Community Defender Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania opposes Mississippi's request for certification of its capital counsel mechanism. They argue that Mississippi's system fails to provide timely, adequately compensated, and competent representation, and that certification would unfairly shorten filing deadlines and restrict access to justice for death-sentenced prisoners.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Foundation and the ACLU of Mississippi oppose the certification of Mississippi's capital counsel mechanism. They argue that the state's system fails to meet federal competency, compensation, and timeliness standards, and that granting certification would risk expedited executions for indigent defendants without adequate legal representation.

The American Bar Association (ABA) opposes the certification of Mississippi's capital counsel mechanism, arguing that the state has failed to establish a functioning system for the appointment and compensation of competent counsel. The ABA highlights Mississippi's history of underfunding, inadequate staffing, and failure to meet established competency benchmarks and guidelines for post-conviction representation.

Stacy Ferraro, a former capital defense attorney and current staff attorney for the Mississippi Office of the State Public Defender, opposes Mississippi's request for certification under Chapter 154 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Ferraro argues that the shortened federal statute of limitations would make it impossible for attorneys to adequately investigate and develop facts for state court petitions, potentially leading to the execution of innocent people and violating due process.

Oliver E. Diaz, Jr., a former Mississippi Supreme Court Justice and attorney, opposes Mississippi's application for certification under Chapter 154 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. He argues that the federal opt-in benefits would dismantle the state's established post-conviction representation system and create an unworkable timeline for defendants to seek meaningful legal relief.

Joseph J. Perkovich, an attorney representing two men in federal habeas corpus proceedings, opposes Mississippi's certification request. He argues that Mississippi's capital post-conviction counsel system fails to provide competent representation, citing specific instances of gross procedural failings and the mishandling of evidence in his clients' cases.

The Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Middle and Western District of Louisiana opposes Mississippi’s application for certification under 28 U.S.C. § 2265. They argue that Mississippi's post-conviction representation mechanism is inadequate and that the "opt-in" provisions would create impossible procedural barriers and shortened deadlines that would prevent capital petitioners from obtaining meaningful judicial review.

The Mwalimu Center for Justice, representing a death-sentenced prisoner, opposes Mississippi's application for certification under Chapter 154. They argue that Mississippi's state post-conviction mechanism is inadequate and that the certification would impose restrictive procedural barriers, such as shortened filing deadlines, that would effectively deny prisoners meaningful access to federal habeas corpus review.