Nevada inmate gets day in high court

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court agreed today to use a Nevada case to clarify a 1996 federal law aimed at curtailing federal court access for state prison inmates seeking to challenge their state prosecutions.

The court said it will decide, probably sometime in 2000, whether convicted killer Antonio Slack is entitled to have a federal judge study the arguments he raised in a 1995 appeal. Lower courts concluded that Slack's appeal was an abuse of his right to appeal and refused to consider the arguments it raised.

John Lambrose, a deputy federal public defender who defended Slack in federal district court and will be part of the team that goes before the Supreme Court, said it is rare for such petitions to be heard by the highest court.

"I'm speechless -- I've been a lawyer in Nevada since October 1981 and have done these at a very brisk rate, and this is the very first for the (federal) public defender in Nevada," he said, crediting fellow public defender Tim O'Toole for writing the petition.

Slack was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison in 1990 for killing Alanna Holms, 12. He admitted killing the girl but said it was an accident.

The Nevada Supreme Court upheld Slack's conviction in 1991, rejecting various constitutional issues his appeal had raised. Slack then sought help from a federal judge in an appeal that lawyers call a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Of the thousands of similar petitions submitted to the Supreme Court annually, only about 100 are heard, Lambrose said, adding that this one "has the potential for having vast implications and could impact jurisprudence for all federal habeas cases throughout the United States."

A victory could maintain or increase the standards by which prisoners of state-committed crimes can appeal their convictions through the federal court system. A loss could narrow it.

The Nevada Attorney General's office, which has crusaded to thwart the filing of what it calls frivolous lawsuits by state prisoners to the federal court system, will oppose the local federal public defender before the Supreme Court.

State prison inmates are allowed to file such appeals if they contend that their state court prosecutions in some way violated a right protected by the federal Constitution. A 1996 law, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, limits most inmates to just one such appeal.

Before state prosecutors could respond to Slack's federal court appeal, he asked that those proceedings be postponed until he could pursue additional claims in state appeals courts.

The federal judge dismissed Slack's case without prejudice in 1992, leaving him the chance to refile it after exhausting all state remedies.

Slack lost those state appeals and in early 1995 returned to federal court. But a federal judge last year threw out the appeal, ruling that it was abusive and illegal because it raised issues not contained in Slack's 1992 federal appeal.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, turning away Slack's case last July.

"What makes this case so complicated is that there is so much history -- a lot of record -- to it," Lambrose said. "It is a very complicated area of law. Federal courts have not wanted to overstep their jurisdiction by interfering with state criminal justice.

In the appeal acted on Monday, O'Toole argued: "Mr. Slack has never received an adjudication by the federal courts of any of his claims; and yet the lower courts have ruled that his initial, uncounseled foray into federal court ... has essentially foreclosed him from raising all available claims during his initial round of federal habeas proceedings."

--

Sun reporter Ed Koch contributed to this report.

archive