Gray habeas petition filed

Counsel for Ronald Gray, who is under a presidentially approved death sentence, filed his habeas petition yesterday in U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. I've posted the habeas petition here. It raises the following 18 claims for relief:

CLAIM ONE

DURING PEACETIME, ALLOWING A MEMBER OF THE ARMED FORCES TO BE SENTENCED TO DEATH BY A COURT-MARTIAL PANEL OF LESS THAN TWELVE, WHEN THERE IS NO FIXED PANEL SIZE, PROMOTES UNRELIABILITY, UNDERMINES THE RIGHT TO AN IMPARTIAL FACT FINDER AND SENTENCER AND CREATES AN ARBITRARY FACTOR IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH, SIXTH AND EIGHTH AMENDMENTS

CLAIM TWO

IN A CAPITAL COURT-MARTIAL DURING PEACETIME, THE CONVENING AUTHORITY'S POWER TO HAND-PICK MILITARY SUBORDINATES – WHOSE CAREERS HE CAN DIRECTLY AND IMMEDIATELY AFFECT AND CONTROL – TO SERVE AS COURT MEMBERS VIOLATES THE FIFTH, AND EIGHTH AMENDMENT

CLAIM THREE

AN APPELLATE COURT CAN NOT ASSUME THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE MADE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL'S EXPLANATION WAS CREDIBLE OR PRETEXTUAL PURSUANT TO BATSON V. KENTUCKY, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), WITHOUT CONDUCTING A FURTHER HEARING ON THE ISSUE, WHEN THE TRIAL JUDGE RULED ON PETITIONER'S BATSON CLAIM WITHOUT EVEN REQUIRING THE PROSECUTOR TO PROVIDE A RACE NEUTRAL EXPLANATION FOR THE CHALLENGE.

CLAIM FOUR

PETITIONER WAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY WHEN THE MILITARY JUDGE IMPROPERLY GRANTED GOVERNMENT CHALLENGES FOR CAUSE AGAINST TWO MEMBERS

CLAIM FIVE

THE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE PROCEDURE IN THE MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM, WHICH ALLOWS THE GOVERNMENT TO REMOVE ONE JUROR WITHOUT CAUSE, IS UNNECESSARY AND SUBJECT TO ABUSE IN ITS APPLICATION AND WAS ABUSED IN PETITIONER'S CASE

CLAIM SIX

PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH, SIXTH AND EIGHTH AMENDMENTS BECAUSE THE PANEL MEMBER SELECTION POOL IN PETITIONER'S CASE DID NOT INCLUDE ANY FEMALES.

CLAIM SEVEN

THE MILITARY JUDGE IMPROPERLY DENIED A DEFENSE MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL BASED ON TRIAL COUNSEL'S COMMENTS ON PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT

CLAIM EIGHT

THE MILITARY JUDGE PRECLUDED THE SENTENCING PANEL FROM CONSIDERING PETITIONER'S BACKGROUND AS A BASIS FOR A SENTENCE LESS THAN DEATH IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH, SIXTH AND EIGHTH AMENDMENTS

CLAIM NINE

ARTICLE 18 OF THE UCMJ AND R.C.M. 201(F)(l)(c), WHICH REQUIRE TRIAL BY MEMBERS IN A CAPITAL CASE, VIOLATES THE FIFTH, SIXTH AND EIGHTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEE OF DUE PROCESS AND A RELIABLE VERDICT

CLAIM TEN

R.C.M. 1004'S PROHIBITION AGAINST GUILTY PLEAS IN CAPITAL COURT-MARTIAL DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF A CRITICAL MITIGATING FACTOR AND CAUSED OTHER IRREPARABLE PREJUDICE IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH, SIXTH AND EIGHTH AMENDMENTS

CLAIM ELEVEN

PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT HIS CAPITAL COURT-MARTIAL

CLAIM TWELVE

PETITIONER'S APPELLATE COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH, SIXTH, AND EIGHTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS

CLAIM THIRTEEN

THE MILITARY JUDGE IMPROPERLY INSTRUCTED THE PANEL JURY IN VIOLATION OF PETITIONER’S FIFTH, SIXTH, AND EIGHTH, AMENDMENT RIGHTS

CLAIM FOURTEEN

THE MILITARY JUDGE DENIED RESOURCES NECESSARY TO RETAIN EXPERT SERVICES IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION TO ASSIST THE DEFENSE IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH, SIXTH AND EIGHTH AMENDMENTS

CLAIM FIFTEEN

THE AGGRAVATING FACTOR STATED IN R.C.M. 1004(c)(7)(I) IS VAGUE, FAILS TO SUFFICIENTLY CLARIFY THE FACTOR INVOLVED, AND DOES NOT NARROW THE CLASS OF PERSONS ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEATH PENALTY, AND IS THEREFORE INVALID UNDER THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT

CLAIM SIXTEEN

BASED ON THE SUPREME COURT'S REASONING IN RING V. ARIZONA, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), CONGRESS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATED TO THE PRESIDENT THE POWER TO ENACT THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF ELEMENTS OF CAPITAL MURDER, A PURELY LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION

CLAIM SEVENTEEN

THE PROPORTIONALITY REVIEW IN THIS CASE WAS INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH, SIXTH AND EIGHTH AMENDMENTS

CLAIM EIGHTEEN

THE MANNER IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT WOULD CARRY OUT PETITIONER'S EXECUTION VIOLATES THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT