Judge Andre Mathis, who was nominated by President Biden to the Sixth Circuit court of appeals, wrote a unanimous opinion that reversed a lower court and allowed an indigent woman to proceed with her post-conviction claim that her trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective because he failed to claim that the fire inspector who provided critical testimony that led to her arson conviction was unqualified. The August 2024 decision was in Ayers v Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections,
What happened in this case?
Kayla Ayers and her three-year-old son lived in a house with her father Jeff in Ohio. Shortly after Jeff moved out of the home, the local fire department responded to a report of a fire in the house. Although no one was hurt, significant damage occurred, and Ayers was charged with arson. Her conviction rested largely on the testimony of fire inspector Reginald Winters. He prepared an expert report that concluded the fire was caused by ‘deliberate” misconduct. Although the report contained several errors, it was admitted and led to Ayers’ conviction. She was represented by a public defender, who never challenged Winters’ qualifications or consulted an independent arson expert.
Seven years later, the Ohio Innocence Project (OIP) agreed to represent Ayers, who continued to claim she was innocent. The OIP secured a report from John Lentini, a renowned arson expert, which significantly undermined the arson theory and questioned Winters’ qualifications to testify about the fire’s cause, stating that his methods were “unreliable, unscientific, and at odds with generally accepted fire investigation methodology.”
OIP filed a petition for post-conviction relief for Ayers in federal court. But the court denied the request as too late. OIP and Ayers appealed to the Sixth Circuit.
How did Judge Mathis and the Sixth Circuit Rule and Why is it Important?
Judge Mathis wrote a unanimous opinion ruling that Ayers should be permitted to go forward with her claim. Under federal law, he explained, the question was whether the claim for post-conviction or habeas relief had been filed within one year of when Ayers “could have discovered the factual predicate” of her claim. The “factual predicate,” or “vital facts” underlying her claim, Mathis continued, was Lentini’s expert report, and as an indigent prisoner, she could not have obtained that report until she received OIP’s assistance. Ayers and OIP filed the petition within a year of the report, Mathis wrote, so the petition was timely and should be considered on the merits by the court below.
Judge Mathis’ opinion is obviously important to Kayla Ayres, who can now proceed to seek justice in the criminal case filed against her. The ruling is also important because it sets a precedent concerning how to compute the time requirements for filing a petition for federal post-conviction relief, particularly in the Sixth Circuit, which includes Tennessee, Michigan, Kentucky and Ohio. It also serves as a reminder of the importance of promptly confirming fair-minded judges to our federal courts.