A Texas case before the Supreme Court, today, could have a lasting impact on many death penalty appeals.
It was two decades ago that Carlos Ayestas was tried and convicted of strangling Santiago Paneque during a burglary of her Houston home. He appealed, arguing his lawyers failed to collect testimony from his family members that could have shined light on mental illness. The Texas courts rejected Ayestas' appeals.
Then in 2009, Ayestas appealed again, arguing that evidence would have showed that he suffered from schizophrenia. And, again, a federal district court shot him down.
But, in 2012, the Supreme Court issued a 7-2 ruling in Martinez v. Ryan, which changed the rules for claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments to determine whether the investigative services Ayestas wants are "reasonably necessary."
His attorney, Lee Kovarsky, says he's got a shot.
"If someone had undertaken the investigation earlier, they would have found some really persuasive mitigation," he tells Newsradio 1200 WOAI. "It would not have been a two-minute mitigation case."
A ruling for Ayestas would give new legal avenues for convicts fighting death sentences.
Robert Dunham with the Death Penalty Information Center says the process has to be fair, and in order for anyone to have confidence in the system, people who have been condemned need access to the court.
"If you have extended proceedings in which you are repeatedly denied meaningful access to develop the facts, then you end up with a process that is inherently unfair and unreliable and undermines the legitimacy of our criminal justice system."