About 3 dozen supporters gathered early on this unseasonably frigid morning wearing all black A3 T-shirts while a newly outfitted mobile billboard proclaiming “36 Years of Solitary, 36 Years of Innocence” circled the courthouse.  The protest was peaceful, respectful, and well-matched to the formal tone of the hearing soon to begin. 

 

A big thanks to Angola 3 Action for organizing the event: http://angola3action.org/; and to Loyola Law School for providing legal observers.  I’ll send out pictures later this week 😉

By the time many of us made it up to the courtroom, it was packed with ample representation from supporters of both camps.  Two lines of spectators stood against the back wall for the duration of the hearing since all available seats were quickly filled.  Many of the main characters from the State’s team were present:  Burl Cain, the Miller family, several Angola guards and residents (although none in uniform as in previous hearings), and of course Buddy Caldwell. 
 
As advertised, the hearing was short and to the point.  Both sides argued clearly and reasonably.  None of the three judges shied away from questions–I counted almost 20 in the short 50 min proceeding.  In fact the panel voluntarily allotted an additional 5 min to each side to account for how inquisitive they were.  It was clear to anyone listening that the judges were all very well informed about the most minute details of the case; and reassuring that despite their intense questioning, there was nothing they asked that Albert’s attorneys were not anticipating. 
 
Since inadequate defense counsel is at the heart of Judge Brady’s ruling, there was lively debate throughout as to whether it was even possible to discern in more than a purely speculative way whether the performance of Albert’s 1998 legal team was “inadequate” or simply “unsuccessful.”  Nuances about the very definitions of legal concepts and precedents like “Brady” and “Strickland,” as well as inconsistencies surrounding central pieces of evidence like the bloody fingerprint and eye-witnesses, were discussed in depth; but the the judges also took time to ask for clarification about less crucial points like the alibi witnesses in Albert’s first trial. 
 
Despite diligent, thoughtful, and tough questioning of both sides, the judges used words like “oversights,” “mistakes,” and “governmental mischief” when questioning the State about their case.  Judge King was sure to remind the State when they directed her to read a certain page of the Magistrate’s report that the judges were better prepared than the State seemed to think:  “Oh, we have read it…” she said emphatically.
 
Now it is simply a waiting game.  We expect the court to rule in 1-6 months, and are hopeful it will be sooner than later since they themselves “expedited” the process during the bail proceedings. 

 

As a quick review, if the 5th Circuit agrees with Albert’s attorneys and upholds Judge Brady’s ruling, then the State has 120 days to either retry or release Albert.  They have already vowed to retry him.  If the 5th Circuit agrees with the State, then the conviction is reinstated and Albert would have to start the appeals process all over again with a different claim if he wants to try to gain his freedom.  There are several other possible scenarios that could play out but those are the two most likely outcomes.