USA: Hinrichtung stoppen!

A state post-conviction hearing was held to consider the claim that the defence representation had been inadequate. Dr G., who had by now reviewed Matthew Reeves’ records and conducted tests, testified that he had an intellectual disability. He had assessed Matthew Reeves’ IQ at 71-73, his intellectual functioning as "significantly subaverage", and his adaptive functioning as showing "significant deficits in multiple areas". Also presented was a psychologist who testified that the jury had also not heard about risk factors in Reeves’ life, including his childhood exposure to domestic violence, guns, and substance abuse. The state presented a psychologist who testified that Reeves had an IQ of 68 and operated in the "borderline range of intellectual ability". The state court rejected the claims of intellectual disability and inadequate representation on the grounds that the trial lawyers had not been called to testify at the hearing. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. The US Supreme Court declined to intervene, over the dissent of three Justices who wrote that constitutional law relating to ineffective-assistance claims does not require testimony from trial counsel.

The US District Court upheld the death sentence in 2019, emphasising that the federal petition was governed by the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, requiring federal deference to state court decisions. In 2020, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court on its denial of the intellectual disability claim, but reversed it on the ineffective assistance issue, ruling that the trial lawyers’ performance was "deficient"; "the mitigating evidence that counsel failed to obtain and present was powerful" and its absence was "sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome". However, in 2021, the Supreme Court overturned this without providing Reeves with an opportunity to brief the matter or provide oral argument. Three Justices dissented. Two said that the decision "continues a troubling trend in which this Court strains to reverse summarily any grants of relief to those facing execution". The Court was turning "deference" into "a rule that federal habeas relief is never available to those facing execution".

On 7 January 2022, a federal judge issued an injunction blocking Matthew Reeves’ execution by any method other than nitrogen hypoxia. Alabama had granted those on death row a one-off opportunity to choose this new method, instead of the default method, lethal injection. Matthew Reeves did not fill in the election form, but his lawyers say he would have chosen hypoxia. The judge agreed that because of his cognitive deficits, Matthew Reeves was unable to read and understand the form without assistance, and the failure of officials to provide such assistance was discriminatory on grounds of disability. The judge ruled it would not harm the state to delay the execution until it has developed its nitrogen hypoxia protocol, which is expected by April 2022. The state is appealing the injunction.