Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Brian J. Dorsey, Petitioner v. David Vandergriff, Warden

Supreme Court briefApr 7, 2024

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

NO. __________

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

————————————

BRIAN J. DORSEY,

Petitioner

WARDEN DAVID VANDERGRIFF,

Respondent

————————————

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari

to the Supreme Court of Missouri

————————————

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

————————————

KIRK J. HENDERSON

Counsel of Record

ARIN MELISSA BRENNER

Assistant Federal Public Defenders

Federal Public Defender for the

Western District of Pennsylvania

1001 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1500

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

412-644-6565

kirk_henderson@fd.org

Supreme Court Bar No. 229934

Counsel for Petitioner Brian J. Dorsey

CAPITAL CASE

Execution Scheduled for April 9, 2024 at 6:00 pm CDT

QUESTION PRESENTED

* CAPITAL CASE *

This Court has a long history of barring execution when a death sentence no longer furthers

the penological goals of capital punishment. See Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972); Coker

v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977); Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982); Ford v. Wainwright,

477 U.S. 399 (1986); Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551

(2005); Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007); Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008).

As the Court has recognized, the two principal goals of capital punishment are retribution and

deterrence. See Kennedy, 554 U.S. at 420, 441; Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 183 (1976);

Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863, 896 (2015) (Scalia, J., with Thomas, J., concurring). But when a

person on death row has been rehabilitated, execution of the individual would not sufficiently

further those penological goals. The Court has not yet addressed whether it would violate the

Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment to execute a person who has

been rehabilitated during his time on death row.

This is the rare case where a person facing an imminent execution unquestionably is fully

rehabilitated. Brian Dorsey committed the offense during a drug-induced psychosis. During Mr.

Dorsey’s many years on death row, removed from the circumstances that led to his psychosis, he

has been rehabilitated. Notably, he earned the extraordinary trust of prison staff: he served as the

prison’s barber – cutting the hair of inmates, correctional officers, and even wardens – and lived

in the prison’s honor dorm. He never broke a prison rule and maintained a clean prison record for

more than 17 years. And he has received the unprecedented support of more than 70 correctional

officers in seeking clemency.

The question presented is:

When a death-sentenced person has demonstrated that he has been rehabilitated, does the

Eighth Amendment prohibit his execution because the penological goals of the death penalty

would not be met by executing that person?

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS

Petitioner is Brian J. Dorsey, a death-row inmate imprisoned at the Potosi Correctional

Center in the State of Missouri.

Respondent is Warden David Vandergriff, Warden at the Potosi Correctional Center.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTION PRESENTED ......................................................................................................... I

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS ......................................................................................... II

OPINION BELOW .....................................................................................................................1

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............................................................................................1

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION INVOLVED ........................................................................1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...................................................................................................2

A. Factual Background .....................................................................................................2

B. Procedural history ........................................................................................................3

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT .................................................................................5

WHEN A DEATH-SENTENCED PERSON EXHIBITS REMARKABLE

REDEMPTION AND FULL REHABILITATION, HAS A PERFECT PRISON

RECORD, AND RECEIVES UNPRECEDENTED SUPPORT FROM SCORES OF

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, THE PENOLOGICAL GOALS SUPPORTING

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ARE NOT FURTHERED AND EXECUTING A

PERSON IN THAT UNIQUE CLASS OF PEOPLE VIOLATES THE EIGHTH

AMENDMENT. ..............................................................................................................5

A. BRIAN DORSEY’S UNPARALLELED PRISON BEHAVIOR AND PRISON STAFF

SUPPORT. ...................................................................................................................6

Prior to the crime and imposition of the death penalty...............................................6

Mr. Dorsey’s Time at Potosi Correctional Center. .....................................................8

The Unprecedented Support from Correctional Staff............................................... 11

Executing a Wholly Rehabilitated Model Prisoner Harms Correctional Staff, the

Prison Community, and Society. ............................................................................. 17

B. GOALS OF THE DEATH PENALTY AND CATEGORICAL BARS TO

EXECUTION. ............................................................................................................. 20

C. REHABILITATION AND BECOMING “A CHANGED HUMAN BEING” DURING

THE MANY YEARS ON DEATH ROW. ...................................................................... 24

D. GOOD PRISON BEHAVIOR ALREADY IS RECOGNIZED AS AN IMPORTANT

FACTOR IN DETERMINING WHO SHOULD AND WHO SHOULD NOT BE

EXECUTED. ..............................................................................................................29

E. GOOD BEHAVIOR WHILE ON DEATH ROW IS RECOGNIZED AS A REASON

TO SPARE SOMEONE FROM BEING EXECUTED. ................................................. 30

CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 32

iii

APPENDICES

Opinion of the Supreme Court of Missouri (March 20, 2024)

Appendix A

Mandate Issued by the Supreme Court of Missouri (March 20, 2024)

Appendix B

Letter of Mary Fox, Director of Missouri State Public Defender

Appendix C

Report of Retired Warden Troy L. Steele

Appendix D

Report of Dr. Steven N. Gold with addendum

Appendix E

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) ...................................................................... i, 20, 21, 22

Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008)............................................................................................... 27

Bucklew v. Precythe, 139 S.Ct. 1112 (2019) .............................................................................. 27

Clay v. Dormire, 37 S.W.3d 214 (Mo. 2000) ...............................................................................4

Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977) ............................................................................ i, 21, 22

Coleman v. Balkcom, 451 U.S. 949 (1981) ................................................................................ 27

Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982) ................................................................................i, 22

Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003).................................................................................... 25

Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986)........................................................................... i, 5, 23

Ford v. Wainwright, 752 F.2d 526 (11th Cir. 1985),

rev’d by Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) ................................................................ 26

Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992) .................................................................................. 25

Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) ................................................ i, 5, 6, 21, 22, 24, 28, 32

Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863 (2015) .................................................................... 25, 26, 27, 28

Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 58 (2010) ..................................................................................... 22

Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) ......................................................................... 21, 22, 30

Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) .............................................................................. 21

In re Medley, 134 U.S. 160 (1890) ............................................................................................ 28

Jones v. Mississippi, 141 S.Ct. 1307 (2021)............................................................................... 26

Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163 (2006) ........................................................................................8

Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008)...................................................... i, 8, 21, 23, 24, 26

Knight v. Florida, 120 S.Ct. 459 (1999) .................................................................................... 27

Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 (1995)...................................................................................... 27

Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978) ..........................................................................................8

Lucas v. Johnson, 132 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 965 (1998) ................. 32

Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007) ..........................................................................i, 23

Post v. Bradshaw, 621 F.3d 406 (6th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 563 U.S. 1009 (2011) ................. 31

Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (1968) ........................................................................................ 24

Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) ....................................................................... i, 8, 22, 24

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969) .....................................................................7

Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (1986) ............................................................................ 29

Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989),

rev’d by Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)................................................................... 32

State ex rel. Amrine v. Roper, 102 S.W.3d 541 (Mo. 2003)..........................................................4

State ex rel. Middleton v. Russell, 435 S.W.3d 83 (Mo. banc 2014) .............................................4

State v. Andrews, 843 P.2d 1027 (Utah 1992), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1233 (1992) .................... 26

State v. Welcome, 458 So.2d 1235 (La. 1983), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1088 (1985) .................... 31

Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958) ............................................................................................ 21

United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203 (1942) ..................................................................................7

Walton v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1189 (2006) ............... 31

Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910) ............................................................................ 20

Williams v. People of State of N.Y., 337 U.S. 241 (1949) ..................................................... 21, 25

Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000).................................................................................... 30

Winfield v. Steele, 26 F.Supp.3d 890 (E.D. Mo. 2014),

rev’d 755 F.3d 629 (8th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 573 U.S. 928 (2014)................................... 16

Winfield v. Steele, 755 F.3d 629 (8th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 573 U.S. 928 (2014) ................... 16

Constitutional Provisions

U.S. Const. amend. VIII .......................................................... i, 1, 5, 20, 22, 23, 24, 30, 32

Other Authorities

Alisa Nelson, Turnover Rate of Missouri’s Prison Guards Continues to Climb,

MissouriNet (12/15/2016), available at www.missourinet.com/2016/12/15/turnoverrate-of-missouris-prison-guards-continues-toclimb/#:~:text=The%20percentage%20of%20Missouri%0correctionscorrections,ago%2

0to%20the%20current%2025%25 ......................................................................................... 20

Bob Holden, Parson must intervene and stop the execution of Ernest Johnson, Missouri

Independent (10/1/2021), available at https://missouriindependent.com/2021/10/01/

former-gov-bob-holden-parson-must-intervene-and-stop-the-execution-of-ernestjohnson .................................................................................................................................15

Bucklew clemency petition, St. Louis Post-Dispatch (9/24/2019), available at

www.stltoday.com/bucklew-clemency-petition/pdf_25f4e6df-084f-5d52-add8a5c4ae978fd0.html ................................................................................................................ 15

Carol S. Steiker & Jordan M. Steiker, Entrenchment and/or Stabilization: Reflections on

(Another) Two Decades of Constitutional Regulation of Capital Punishment, 30 Law

And Inequality 211 (2012) .................................................................................................... 29

Claudia Levens, Corrections staffing shortages persist, Jefferson City News Tribune

(1/3/2023), available at www.newstribune.com/news/2023/jan/03/corrections-staffingshort-ages-persist .................................................................................................................. 21

Death Penalty Information Center, Facts About the Death Penalty (2/24/2024),

available at https://dpic-cdn.org/production/documents/pdf/FactSheet.pdf ............................ 34

Death Penalty Information Center, List of Clemencies Since 1976, available at

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/clemency/list-of-clemenciessince-1976 ................................................................................................................. 33, 34, 35

Death Penalty Information Center, The Death Penalty in 2023: Year End Report, available

at https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/dpic-reports/dpic-year-end-reports/the-death-penalty-in-2023-year-end-report#executed-prisoners-spent-longer-ondeath-row .............................................................................................................................. 27

Equal Justice Initiative, Despite Appeal from Prison Guards for Clemency, Jeff Land is

Executed, Equal Justice Initiative (8/12/2010), available at https://eji.org/news/alabamaexecutes-jeff-land-despite-appeal-from-prison-guards-for-clemency .....................................15

Hunter Walterman, ‘Wherever they’re needed most:’ New units support Missouri’s

understaffed prisons, KOMU (10/8/2023), available at www.komu.com/news/

midmissourinews/wherever-theyre-needed-most-new-units-support-missourisunderstaffed-prisons/article_db5 f3a8e-63b2-11ee-8a06-37c35aed3acc.html ......................... 21

Mounting job vacancies push state and local governments into a wage war for workers,

Spectrum News (7/30/2023), available at https://spectrumlocalnews.com/mo/stlouis/news/2023/07/28/mounting-job-vacancies-push-state-and-local-gov-ernmentsinto-a-wage-war-for-workers- ...............................................................................................20

Pamela Ortega & Emily Smith, 3 corrections officers say Nicholas Sutton protected them.

He was executed Thursday night, CNN (2/21/2020), available at www.cnn.com/

2020/02/20/us/nick-sutton-execution/ index.html ..................................................................16

Ruth Brown, Judge who sentenced Idaho inmate Thomas Creech now says he shouldn’t be

executed, Idaho Capital Sun (10/16/2023), available at https://idahocapitalsun.com/

2023/10/16/judge-who-sentenced-idaho-inmate-thomas-creech-now-says-he-shouldntbe-executed ........................................................................................................................... 14

Zuri Davis, Corrections Officers, Jurors, and the Families of Nick Sutton’s Victims Want

Him Taken Off Death Row, Reason Magazine (1/15/2020), available at

https://reason.com/2020/01/15/corrections-officers-jurors-and-the-families-of-nicksuttons-victims-want-him-taken-off-death-row ......................................................................15

vii

OPINION BELOW

The opinion of the Supreme Court of Missouri was issued on March 20, 2024. In re: Dorsey

v. Vandergriff, No. SC100486, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2024 WL 1194417 (Mo. 2024).

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri was entered on March 20, 2024. The

jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §1257(a).

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION INVOLVED

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “[e]xcessive bail

shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

U.S. Const. amend. VIII.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Brian Dorsey called his cousin, Sarah Bonnie, looking for help because he was being held

by two drug dealers. Ms. Bonnie and her husband, Ben Bonnie, went to his apartment and the

drug dealers left. The three then went back to the Bonnie’s home, where they and other friends

spent the evening drinking and playing pool in the “shop.” Opinion of the Supreme Court of

Missouri (March 20, 2024) at 2-3, attached as Appendix A. Mr. Dorsey, who had a life-long

history of suffering from major depression, had been on a crack cocaine binge and had not slept in

about 72 hours. As he was crashing from this binge, he experienced a drug-induced psychosis.

As he drank more beer and vodka, he became suicidal and also experienced hallucinations and

paranoid delusions. Id. at 8.

Once Ms. Bonnie, Mr. Bonnie, and their child went to their bedrooms, Mr. Dorsey, while in

this state, picked up a shotgun from the shop and went into the parents’ bedroom, where he shot

both Ms. Bonnie and Mr. Bonnie. At the penalty phase, the State presented evidence that Mr.

Dorsey raped Ms. Bonnie and poured bleach over her torso, even though it did not charge him with

any crime related to this. Id. at 3. Mr. Dorsey left the home, taking several items with him,

including the Bonnie’s car, and later attempted to sell them. Id. at 3. When he later learned that

the police were looking for him, Mr. Dorsey turned himself into the police. When asked if the

police were speaking to the correct person about these killings, Mr. Dorsey immediately said they

were. Id. at 4.

The Missouri Public Defender contracted with two attorneys who were each paid a $12,000

flat fee to represent Mr. Dorsey, irrespective of whether his case required a trial or how much time

they would have to spend on the case. With that arrangement, the contract attorneys convinced

Mr. Dorsey to plead guilty without the benefit of an agreement that, in exchange for a guilty plea,

the State would not pursue the death penalty. 1 After a short penalty phase hearing, during which

little was done by counsel to obtain a life sentence, Mr. Dorsey was sentenced to death.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Following the imposition of Mr. Dorsey’s death sentence, the sentence was upheld on direct

appeal. State v. Dorsey, 318 S.W.3d 648 (Mo. 2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1067 (2010). Mr.

Dorsey sought post-conviction relief in state court, the denial of which was upheld by the Supreme

Court of Missouri. Dorsey v. State, No. SC93168, 448 S.W.3d 276 (Mo. 2014), reh’g denied. Mr.

Dorsey filed a Rule 91 habeas petition in the Missouri Supreme Court, which was denied. State

ex rel. Dorsey v. Griffith, No. SC96440 (Mo. 2017), cert. denied, 583 U.S. 1018 (2017). Mr.

Dorsey’s efforts to obtain federal habeas relief also failed. See Dorsey v. Steele, 2019 WL 4740518

(W.D.Mo. 2019); Dorsey v. Vandergriff, 30 F.4th 752 (8th Cir. 2022), rehearing denied, 2022 WL

2180216, cert. denied, 143 S.Ct. 790 (2023).

On December 13, 2023, the Supreme Court of Missouri issued an execution warrant. Mr.

Dorsey filed a Rule 91 habeas petition in the Missouri Supreme Court on December 22, 2023,

arguing that his conviction and death sentence were obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment

right to unconflicted, effective counsel and that his execution would be a manifest injustice because

he is actually innocent of capital murder. State ex rel. Dorsey v. Vandergriff, No. SC100388. Mr.

Dorsey filed a separate Rule 91 habeas petition on February 25, 2024, the denial of which is the

This flat fee arrangement is the basis of the petition for certiorari that was filed in this

Court on April 1, 2024 and is docketed at No. 23-7119 and is still pending. That claim was

presented to the Missouri Supreme Court in a separate Rule 91 habeas petition, which was

docketed at No. SC100388, but it was decided in the same opinion with the Rule 91 habeas petition

that is at issue here. The court did issue separate mandates for each case.

basis for this petition for writ of certiorari. In re Dorsey v. Vandergriff, No. SC100486. On March

20, 2024, the Supreme Court of Missouri issued an opinion denying both Rule 91 habeas petitions.

Appendix A (Missouri Supreme Court Opinion), ___ S.W.3d ___, 2024 WL 1194417 (Mo. 2024).

The court issued separate mandates for each of the distinct habeas petitions. See Appendix B

(mandate related to the judgment challenged here). The court denied the Eighth Amendment claim

presented here on its merits.2 See Appendix A (Missouri Supreme Court Opinion) at 18.

As Mr. Dorsey argued in the Missouri Supreme Court, the claim presented in this

petition could not have been raised prior to the issuance of an execution warrant because it was

not yet ripe. The Missouri Supreme Court did not find, as the State argued, that the claim should

have been raised earlier. See Appendix A (Missouri Supreme Court Opinion) at 17-21. This is

not surprising, as that court previously held that a Rule 91 habeas petition is the appropriate vehicle

for a claim that has not become ripe until an execution date has been set. See State ex rel.

Middleton v. Russell, 435 S.W.3d 83, 83 (Mo. banc 2014) (in the context of an incompetency-tobe-executed claim, the Court noted that “[a] petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Rule 91 is

a proper means of asserting such a claim in this Court and has been used by inmates facing

execution in the past”). Moreover, in Rule 91 proceedings, the Missouri Supreme Court has

unfettered discretion to issue a writ to correct a manifest injustice, regardless of when a claim is

raised. Clay v. Dormire, 37 S.W.3d 214, 217 (Mo. 2000); see also State ex rel. Amrine v. Roper,

102 S.W.3d 541, 546 (Mo. 2003).

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

WHEN A DEATH-SENTENCED PERSON EXHIBITS REMARKABLE

REDEMPTION AND FULL REHABILITATION, HAS A PERFECT PRISON

RECORD, AND RECEIVES UNPRECEDENTED SUPPORT FROM SCORES OF

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, THE PENOLOGICAL GOALS SUPPORTING

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ARE NOT FURTHERED AND EXECUTING A PERSON

IN THAT UNIQUE CLASS OF PEOPLE VIOLATES THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT.

Brian Dorsey, who is scheduled for execution on April 9, 2024, belongs to a unique class of

persons sentenced to death who have achieved remarkable redemption and rehabilitation while

under a sentence of death. He has spent more than 17 years on death row without a single rules

infraction. No death-sentenced person has ever had a better prison record. Mr. Dorsey lives in

the prison’s honor dorm, and he has been entrusted as the prison barber to handle potentiallydangerous tools and cut the hair of fellow inmates, prison staff, and even wardens. Mr. Dorsey

also has the unprecedented written support of over 70 prison staff members, as well as the former

warden of the prison, who attest to Mr. Dorsey’s rehabilitation and believe he should not be

executed.

This Court has recognized that an execution can be barred by the Constitution in

extraordinary circumstances when it “ceases realistically to further the[ ] purposes” of capital

punishment. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 312 (1972) (opinion concurring in judgment).

When a death-sentenced person has spent years on death row with this kind of record, the

penological goal of rehabilitation has been satisfied and the capital punishment goals of retribution

and deterrence are not met by an execution. The question never answered by this Court is whether,

to “protect the dignity of society itself from the barbarity of exacting mindless vengeance,” Ford,

477 U.S. at 410, means that the Eighth Amendment protects from execution those who have

satisfied the penological goal of rehabilitation. As this Court has made clear, “[a] penalty with

such negligible returns to the State would be patently excessive and cruel and unusual punishment

violative of the Eighth Amendment.” Furman, 408 U.S. at 312. The Court should grant certiorari

because the goals of capital punishment will not be furthered by the execution of Brian Dorsey.

A. BRIAN DORSEY’S UNPARALLELED PRISON BEHAVIOR AND PRISON

STAFF SUPPORT.

Prior to the crime and imposition of the death penalty.

Prior to the events that underlie this case, Brian Dorsey, like many in his family, was

diagnosed with major depressive disorder; despite his attempts to get treatment, the disease would

prove medication-resistant. Beginning when he was a teenager, he was introduced to crack cocaine

and, without other viable options, he used crack cocaine to self-treat his depression. Mr. Dorsey

would go on long binges, but because of the paranoid delusions he would routinely experience, he

would do so sequestered by himself. In December 2006, however, he was effectively kidnapped

by drug dealers who wanted to be paid. Mr. Dorsey’s cousin, Sarah Bonnie, and her husband, Ben

Bonnie, extricated Mr. Dorsey and took him back to their house. By that evening, Mr. Dorsey had

not slept in over 72 hours, was suffering from withdrawal, which historically came with paranoid

delusions and hallucinations, and he also was drinking heavily that night (beer and then vodka).

After other people had left and Ms. Bonnie and Mr. Bonnie had gone to bed, Mr. Dorsey saw their

shotgun and considered killing himself. While he does not recall other details due to heavy

intoxication, he was severely sleep-deprived and suicidal, and the withdrawal from cocaine would

have, as it had many times before, plunged him into psychosis. It was during this time that Mr.

Dorsey shot Sarah and Ben Bonnie. While still in a psychotic state, Mr. Dorsey left the home,

taking with him some of the Bonnie’s possessions. 3

Mr. Dorsey’s other Rule 91 Petition filed in the Missouri Supreme Court presented

evidence never before considered by a court that Mr. Dorsey was actually innocent of capital

Mr. Dorsey eventually turned himself in to the authorities. His trial attorneys were paid a

$12,000 flat fee for their entire representation of Mr. Dorsey irrespective of how much – or how

little – time they invested in the case. Because this flat-fee construct incentivizes doing less work

for a client, see Letter of Mary Fox, Director of Missouri State Public Defender at 1-2, attached as

Appendix C, these attorneys convinced Mr. Dorsey to plead guilty in exchange for absolutely

nothing. Worse yet, they devised this misguided plan before their retained psychologist completed

his evaluation and provided an opinion. Had counsel completed this minimal work with the expert,

they would have known that Mr. Dorsey had a viable defense to capital first-degree murder, which

would have provided a basis for seeking an agreement not to pursue the death penalty in exchange

for a guilty plea. Counsel also could have presented a defense at a trial. That counsel was

unwilling to spend the time needed to competently represent Mr. Dorsey is further demonstrated

by the fact that, even though they did not have to prepare for a guilt phase trial, they did little to

even prepare for the penalty phase trial and did not even retain a mitigation specialist.

Had counsel taken the time to do the work, they would have learned that Mr. Dorsey was

suffering from a drug-induced psychosis, which meant he was incapable of forming the necessary

intent for capital murder. They also would have discovered a wealth of mitigation information,

confirming that Mr. Dorsey never was among the “worst of the worst” for whom capital

murder. That petition was the first time that any Court has been presented with compelling

evidence, from independent, consistent experts, that Mr. Dorsey was experiencing drug psychosis

the night of the crime and thus was incapable of deliberation – the requisite intent for capital

murder. Mr. Dorsey’s trial attorneys, who were operating under a flat fee contract, did not

undertake the standard investigation that would have provided then with the evidence to present

this to the jury. For the Missouri Supreme Court’s restatement of this evidence, see Appendix A

(Missouri Supreme Court Opinion) at 8-10. A petition for certiorari covering that claim is

docketed in this Court at No. 23-7119. This Court “may properly take judicial notice of the record

in that litigation between the same parties who are now before us.” Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham,

394 U.S. 147, 157 (1969); see also, e.g., United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203, 216 (1942).

punishment should be reserved. See Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163, 206 (2006) (Souter, J.,

dissenting); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 568 (2005) (“Capital punishment must be limited to

those offenders who commit a narrow category of the most serious crimes and whose extreme

culpability makes them the most deserving of execution”); Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407,

420 (2008) (the death penalty is reserved for “the most deserving of execution” (quoting Roper,

543 U.S. at 568)).

Instead, counsel quickly convinced Mr. Dorsey to avoid a guilt phase by pleading guilty.

And even though that meant counsel did not have to prepare for a guilt phase, they nevertheless

failed to even retain a mitigation investigator or do the necessary investigation to prepare for a

capital penalty trial. As a result, the sentencing jury never received important information about

Mr. Dorsey that would have enabled it to make the individualized sentencing determination

required by the Constitution. Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 602-05 (1978) (plurality opinion).

Given the shortcuts taken by counsel, and their failure to provide the jury with a complete picture

of Mr. Dorsey’s life and mental illness, it is not surprising that the jury sentenced Mr. Dorsey to

death after a brief sentencing hearing. He was sent to death row at Potosi Correctional Center.

Mr. Dorsey’s Time at Potosi Correctional Center.

During Mr. Dorsey’s seventeen-plus years of incarceration, he became the quintessential

model prisoner. He never – not once –was cited for any kind of misconduct while incarcerated.

See Report of Retired Warden Troy L. Steele (Steele Report) at 1-2, attached as Appendix D.

Warden Steele, who was the Potosi Correctional Center Warden earlier in Mr. Dorsey’s

incarceration, noted that “his behavior is reported as exceptional, having received no reports for

any type of misconduct.” Id. at 1. According to the institution’s review of all inmates, Mr. Dorsey

has been “consistently scored as a level 1 demonstrating his commitment to following institutional

standards. Id. at 1-2. The level 1 rating “indicat[es] exceptional behavior.” Id. at 1.

Mr. Dorsey’s exceptional behavior must be viewed in the context of serving a sentence at

Potosi Correctional Center, one of four maximum security male prisons in Missouri and the only

one that “was designed specifically to house the capital punishment offenders for the State of

Missouri.” Id. at 3. Those under a sentence of death “are not housed in a specific unit but are

allowed to integrate with other offenders throughout the institution.” Id. In addition to those

sentenced to death, Potosi Correctional Center often receives those who have proven to be

troublemakers or violent inmates at other institutions. Id. Therefore, “the offenders that Offender

Dorsey must interact with daily are some of the most problematic offenders that the State

incarcerates.” Id. Consequently, “[d]ue to this clientele the staff have a heightened degree of

observation and requirements for compliance.” Id. And, yet, even under this microscope, Mr.

Dorsey has never had an infraction.

Mr. Dorsey has been promoted to live in the honor dorm. Id. at 2. Not only that, “Offender

Dorsey is currently assigned to the highest possible honor status.” Id. Newly arrived inmates

“receive only the very basic privileges.” Id. Inmates are “held to a stringent standard where their

continued appropriate adjustment will allow them advancement in privileges and housing

assignments.” Id. To keep this honor status, Mr. Dorsey must “demonstrat[e] exceptional

behavior daily.” Id.

All inmates at Potosi are required to maintain a job and most involve mundane tasks such as

cleaning the prison, working in food preparation, and doing routine maintenance around the prison.

Id. Some work assignments, however, “are only given to those offenders who have earned the

trust of corrections officials” because they “have exhibited exceptional abilities and appropriate

behavior.” Id. Mr. Dorsey was given the job of staff barber to cut and style the hair of his fellow

inmates as well as the staff of the prison. Id. Barber is “one of the most trusted positions” that an

inmate could have. Id. This is so, not surprisingly, because “he is entrusted with equipment that

could be used as weapons to harm staff.” Id. The prison staff, thus, “trust him in that they put

themselves in a position of vulnerability” when sitting in the barber chair. Id.

The prison undertakes a periodic predatory assessment of all inmates. Id. at 3. For Mr.

Dorsey “[i]t is documented that he does not victimize other offenders, he accepts responsibility for

his actions, he does not stir up trouble with other offenders, and he cooperates with staff.” Id. The

various prison assessment tools “demonstrated that he has the ability to interact appropriately with

other offenders and staff, and requires little supervision in this area.” Id. 4

Warden Steele analyzed Mr. Dorsey’s records, he weighed the records in light of the culture

at Potosi Correctional Center, and he considered his own personal experience with Mr. Dorsey as

one of the offenders he oversaw while warden. He concluded that “Offender Dorsey has been able

to conduct himself in this environment in exceptional fashion having exhibited no behavioral

issues while under the scrutiny of the correctional staff and the harassment of other offenders.” Id.

(emphasis added). In those conditions, “[h]e has obtained the highest levels of respect and

confidence as exhibited by his housing and work assignments.”

Id. (emphasis added).

“Professional staff evaluate his attitude and appearance and indicate he appears to be positive and

appropriate notwithstanding his present predicament.” Id. at 3-4 (emphasis added). “Adding the

Mr. Dorsey has not achieved this record by eschewing opportunities to socialize with

other inmates and avoiding anything that could become antagonistic. For example, Mr. Dorsey

has played softball while at Potosi Correctional Center. This has not led to any sort of problems

with other inmates that one could envision developing during a competitive game involving those

incarcerated at this maximum security prison. Being allowed to play softball also demonstrates

“the level of staff trust which is given as he is permitted the use of a baseball bat in close proximity

to staff.” Id.

stress of his possible upcoming execution, it is remarkable in how he conducts himself as relayed

by those who supervise him throughout the institution.” Id. at 4 (emphasis added).

After conducting this analysis, Warden Steele concluded that he has “no reason to believe

that should his sentence be commuted that his behavior would diminish in any way.” Id.

The Unprecedented Support from Correctional Staff.

Mr. Dorsey’s exceptional behavior and his service to the prison as the staff barber has led to

an extraordinary 70+ staff members from Potosi Correctional Center urging Governor Michael

Parson to commute Mr. Dorsey’s sentence to life in prison.

A group of over 70 corrections staff members at Potosi Correction Center have signed a letter

to Governor Parson. Noting that they “are part of the law enforcement community who believe in

law and order” and that they “[g]enerally believe in the use of capital punishment,” they

nonetheless “are in agreement that the death penalty is not the appropriate punishment for Brian

Dorsey.” Report of Dr. Steven N. Gold (Gold Report) at 4, attached as Appendix E. Echoing

Warden Steele’s evaluation of Mr. Dorsey, the letter states that these correctional officers “believe

that Brian is a good guy, someone who has stayed out of trouble, never gotten himself into any

situations, and been respectful of us and his fellow inmates.” Id. “Brian never presented any

problems, either inside the institution or outside during recreation time.” Id. The letter notes they

understand that, “[i]f all of the inmates were like Brian, there would never be a problem in the

institution.” Id. While understanding that Mr. Dorsey was convicted of murder, they also

explained that “that is not the Brian Dorsey that we know.” Id.

In addition to those 70+ correctional officers, five officers wrote heart-felt individual letters

that conveyed their individual experiences with and feelings about Mr. Dorsey. Below are excerpts

from those five letters:

Letter 1

Over the course of my time in the DOC, I have met a lot of inmates, but I have

never written a letter like this.

When you spend time around Brian like I have, you can just tell that he has changed.

We trusted him with scissors to cut our hair. That says a lot about Brian.

I am a person that respects law and order. I do not take this letter lightly. The Brian

I have known for years could not hurt anyone. The Brian I know does not deserve

to be executed.

Letter 2

Not only has law and order been my life’s work, but I believe in the use of capital

punishment. . . . But the death penalty is not the appropriate punishment for Brian

Dorsey.

He is a role model to other inmates.

I watched Mr. Dorsey during his court hearings, and observed him struggle with

the pain he caused his parents and his family.

If you ask me, if it were not for drugs, none of this would have happened.

Letter 3

I have encountered some inmates who are clearly not rehabilitated, and others who

are. Brian Dorsey fits in the description of the latter.

I know that he is very sorry for his crime. Brian demonstrates a spirit of remorse

and regret. . . . Brian’s remorse is genuine and always present.

Brian does a good job and is an asset to the prison and the state in his employment

as the staff barber.

I believe that Brian must have been extremely high on drugs and out of his right

mind to have committee murder or even to have caused harm to another person.

Letter 4

I believe in our correctional system and I believe in capital punishment. . . . But I

do not believe Mr. Dorsey should be executed.

Mr. Dorsey has accepted what he did and taken accountability for his crime. It is

my impression that he has spent his time since then trying to do his best by being a

role model to other inmates and providing a valuable service to the staff. . . . He is

an example of what we want inmates to be.

I have known many offenders who should be executed. Mr. Dorsey simply is not

one of them. He stands out from other inmates. It would be a loss to the state if he

were executed.

I have never written a letter like this before, and I doubt that I ever will again. Brian

Dorsey is just different.

Letter 5

I have learned that Brian is different in a couple of ways. The first thing that stands

out is that in all the years we have both been here [at Potosi Correctional Center],

Brian has never caused a problem. . . . Brian has never even been written up. Not

even once. I cannot think of another inmate that has that sort of record.

Aside from staying out of trouble, . . . He is always respectful. He is always kind.

People who no longer work here will come back just to get a haircut from Brian.

I believe actions have consequences. I believe Brian deserves to spend the rest of

his life in prison for what he did. However, I do not want to see him executed. He

is very sorry and remorseful about his crime.

Id. at 5-6.

Common themes run through these letters:

Supporting a capital inmate is something new to these correctional officers; it is the first

and, likely the last, time they will feel moved to do it.

They favor the use of capital punishment, but believe it is inappropriate for Mr. Dorsey.

The Brian Dorsey they know would not have been involved in murders but for the impact

of drugs.

From their time with him, they know that Mr. Dorsey is genuinely remorseful.

Mr. Dorsey’s behavior in prison is better than anyone they have seen, and he has never

caused a problem.

Because of that, not surprisingly, Mr. Dorsey has become a role model for other inmates.

It would be a loss to the State of Missouri if a rehabilitated model inmate, who also is the

staff barber, were to be executed.

These Potosi Correctional Center officers have daily contact with those on death row and

with “offenders throughout the State [who] exhibit extreme acts of inappropriate behavior or

violence [so that] they are often transferred to [Potosi Correctional Center].” Appendix D (Steele

Report) at 3. These members of law enforcement know who “the worst of the worst” are in

Missouri. Thus, not surprisingly, these staff members support capital punishment. See Appendix

E (Gold Report) at 4-6. These officers nonetheless understand that Mr. Dorsey is not among “the

worst of the worst.” Id.

In short, Mr. Dorsey came to be incarcerated as someone whose severe mental illness and

florid drug psychosis precipitated a double homicide, rather than as one of “the worst of the worst”

of offenders. Against that backdrop, he has not ever, even once, been cited for any sort of

infraction, which, according to the previous warden at Potosi Correctional Center, is “remarkable.”

Appendix D (Steele Report) at 4. Though this is hard to pin down because correctional officer

support is so rare, it appears that Mr. Dorsey’s level of prison staff support is unparalleled in any

of the 1500+ clemency application ever made in any state. 5

For example, an Idaho death row inmate was supported by seven staff members. Ruth

Brown, Judge who sentenced Idaho inmate Thomas Creech now says he shouldn’t be executed,

Idaho Capital Sun (10/16/2023), available at https://idahocapitalsun.com/2023/10/16/judge-whosentenced-idaho-inmate-thomas-creech-now-says-he-shouldnt-be-executed.

Seven prison

employees supported clemency in a Tennessee case. Zuri Davis, Corrections Officers, Jurors, and

the Families of Nick Sutton’s Victims Want Him Taken Off Death Row, Reason Magazine

(1/15/2020), available at https://reason.com/2020/01/15/corrections-officers-jurors-and-thefamilies-of-nick-suttons-victims-want-him-taken-off-death-row. An Alabama inmate found

support from four staff members. Equal Justice Initiative, Despite Appeal from Prison Guards for

Clemency, Jeff Land is Executed, Equal Justice Initiative (8/12/2010), available at

https://eji.org/news/alabama-executes-jeff-land-despite-appeal-from-prison-guards-for-clemency.

Other requests for mercy have noted good prison behavior and support from fellow inmates,

but, tellingly, without support from corrections staff. See, e.g., Bucklew clemency petition, St.

Louis Post-Dispatch (9/24/2019), available at www.stltoday.com/bucklew-clemencypetition/pdf_25f4e6df-084f-5d52-add8-a5c4ae978fd0.html (noting that Mr. Bucklew was not

violent in prison, but no corrections staff appear to have requested clemency on his behalf); Bob

One may ask why is corrections staff support so rare? First, frankly, few people sentenced

to death have never violated any prison rule and consistently – from start to end – conducted

themselves in such a way as to earn that support. Second, even then, “[i]t’s unusual for corrections

officers to speak well of inmates. . . . There’s this old adage in corrections . . . ‘If you can’t say

nothing bad about an inmate, you don’t say nothing at all.’” Pamela Ortega & Emily Smith, 3

corrections officers say Nicholas Sutton protected them. He was executed Thursday night, CNN

(2/21/2020), available at www.cnn.com/2020/02/20/us/nick-sutton-execution/index.html; 6

Report of Dr. Steven N. Gold at 12 (prison staff letters supporting a death row inmate “is an

exceedingly rare occurrence”).

Third, there are implicit pressures against a prison employee coming forward to offer support

for one of the people incarcerated in the prison in which they work. “To advocate for an inmate

this assertively, which can be viewed by prison administrators as problematic or even

insubordinate, provoking concern that one may be endangering one’s career, strongly suggest that

Brian has conducted himself in a way that has stirred an incomparable degree of dedication from

prison staff.” Appendix E (Gold Report) at 6.

If there is any question that this is true, a federal judge has ruled that a correctional officer at

Potosi was placed under investigation after he indicated willingness to write a supportive letter.

Holden, Parson must intervene and stop the execution of Ernest Johnson, Missouri Independent

(10/1/2021), available at https://missouriindependent.com/2021/10/01/former-gov-bob-holdenparson-must-intervene-and-stop-the-execution-of-ernest-johnson (Mr. Johnson did not have “any

significant conduct violations,” but no correctional staff supported his request for mercy).

This story is quoting James E. Aiken, a former prison warden with more than 33 years

of experience in correctional administration. He now consults on topics such as future

dangerousness and prison conditions and has served on commissions such as the National Prison

Rape

Elimination

Commission.

See

https://cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/nprec/

20090820154824/http://nprec.us/home/commissioners.

The federal judge found that the officer feared for his job. The correctional officer ultimately did

not submit the letter in support of clemency. Winfield v. Steele, 26 F.Supp.3d 890, 894-95 (E.D.

Mo. 2014), rev’d 755 F.3d 629 (8th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 573 U.S. 928 (2014). 7 Altogether,

five federal judges believed the evidence showed that this correctional officer feared for his job if

he supported clemency. See id.; Winfield v. Steele, 755 F.3d 629, 632-35 (8th Cir. 2014)

(dissenting opinions joined by Murphy, J., Bye, J., Melloy, J., and Kelly, J.), cert. denied, 573 U.S.

928 (2014). The point is that staff of the Missouri Department of Corrections would understand

that they could be putting their career in jeopardy by supporting clemency – and, yet, scores of

them have done just that.

Though the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court, it was because the Eighth Circuit

found there was no due process violation or interference with the clemency process because the

DOC ultimately relented and gave the correctional officer’s declaration in support of clemency to

the Governor. The Circuit did not hold that the DOC did not threaten the officer. The district

court, however, did speak to this in detail:

[P]rison officials took actions to intimidate Cole to keep him from providing support for

Winfield’s clemency petition. . . . Cole denies being threatened, although his demeanor,

and the recording of his interview with Wilson, shows that he was intimidated and feared

for his job. . . . [T]here is substantial evidence that the department’s actions caused Cole

to fear that his employment would be negatively affected if he continued to support

clemency. And there is substantial evidence that Cole was, in fact, deterred from

supporting the request for clemency.

Winfield v. Steele, 26 F.Supp.3d at 894-95.

Moreover, the Eighth Circuit four-judge dissent said that “a reasonable trier of fact could

conclude Mr. Cole’s [the correctional officer’s] change of heart and unwillingness to support

Winfield’s clemency was the result of ongoing pressure from the MDOC. The State does not

contend that Winfield’s allegations of intimidation are without merit, and, in fact, it implicitly

concedes the allegations are true.” Winfield v. Steele, 755 F.3d at 635 (Bye, J., dissenting).

Executing a Wholly Rehabilitated Model Prisoner Harms Correctional

Staff, the Prison Community, and Society.

When an inmate is as well-liked and respected as Mr. Dorsey is by the Potosi staff, an

execution can traumatize staff. The trauma suffered by those who take part in the actual execution

is well known. Appendix E (Gold Report) at 7-8. That trauma is present in every execution. Id.

Missouri already knows this to be true; in fact, it is the reason why it changed the site of executions

from the Potosi Correctional Center to the Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center

in Bonne Terre. Id. at 9.

What is unique about Mr. Dorsey’s situation is the unmatched level of support he is receiving

from the staff at Potosi Correctional Center where he is housed. Mr. Dorsey is known by more

staff than the typical death-sentenced person because of his job as the staff barber. As documented

above, he is highly regarded by the staff at Potosi. “For those in close proximity to the condemned,

executions can be especially traumatizing.” Id. “The fact that they know and have interacted with

the condemned and are aware that they have been put to death, can take a considerable toll,

especially if they have grown attached to them.” Id.

This trauma can be experienced by most if not all of the staff at the housing prison in certain

circumstances – like this one. “The risk for enduring harmful consequences expands outward to

those who assume an ancillary role in implementing the death penalty such as death row personnel

who have extensive contact with condemned over their often long periods of imprisonment,

wardens and other prison administrators, prison medical personnel who examine condemned

inmates before and after the execution, and chaplains who act to provide spiritual guidance and

comfort to them.” Id. at 8 (references to scientific literature omitted). These people who have

gotten to know the death-sentenced person over a period of time can expect to suffer “[s]ubstantial

deleterious psychological and medical effects” following an execution. Id. at 8. In sum, “the

impact of the death penalty radiates far beyond those who actually are engaged in carrying it out

or even those who are present to witness the death of the condemned.” Id. at 9.

The impacts upon the Potosi staff can lead to PTSD or other psychiatric syndromes, such as

acute stress disorder, even though the staff is not present at the execution. Id. “It has been well

established in the psychological research literature that physical proximity to a potentially

traumatic event is not the sole or even necessarily the most relevant factor in determining whether

or how traumatic an experience may be.” Id. (reference to scientific literature omitted). This

concern “is especially relevant to Brian’s situation given the widespread positive reaction to him

among prison employees and fellow inmates.” Id.

Even for staff at the housing prison (as opposed to the executing prison), “those who come

to view an instance of [the death penalty’s] implementation as unjust are vulnerable to developing

what is referred to in the psychological research as ‘moral injury.’” Id. at 10. Accordingly, this

would be true for an execution of a particular person, even if the staff member generally supports

capital punishment, as is the case with those who are advocating for Mr. Dorsey. “Moral injury

manifests as emotional disturbance and maladjustment arising from participation in a system that

endorses acts of violence that are at odds with one’s personal moral convictions.” Id. (citation

omitted).

The letters written by the Potosi staff certainly show that allowing this execution to occur

would be “at odds with one’s personal moral convictions.” For example, one correctional officer

says that he “respects law and order,” but “[t]he Brian I know does not deserve to be executed.”

Id. at 5. Another says that “[n]ot only has law and order been my life’s work, but I believe in the

use of capital punishment. . . . But the death penalty is not the appropriate punishment for Brian

Dorsey.” Id. A different correctional officer said that “I have known many offenders who should

be executed. Mr. Dorsey simply is not one of them.” Id. This was how another correctional

officer felt about Mr. Dorsey: “I believe Brian deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison for

what he did. However, I do not want to see him executed.” Id. at 6. The group letter signed by

the scores and scores of Potosi staff says that “[w]e are part of the law enforcement community

who believe in law and order. Generally, we believe in the use of capital punishment. But we are

in agreement that the death penalty is not the appropriate punishment for Brian Dorsey.” Id. at 4.

“Although the symptoms of moral injury can overlap with those found in PTSD, moral injury

has been found to be characterized by higher levels of guilt, intrusive and unbidden episodes of reexperiencing the traumatic event (i.e., traumatic flashbacks, in which the affected person

compellingly revivifies the event, feeling as if it is happening in the present), and remorse.” Id. at

10. (citation omitted).

When this many staff members are suffering from this type of psychological harm, it will

decrease their effectiveness on the job, which in turn will make the prison a less safe environment.

Id.; id. at 11. And, in a system already plagued by high turnover,8 this type of trauma likely will

lead to some staff members leaving this line of work altogether.

Maintaining staff supports prison safety. According to University of Missouri Sociology

Professor Christopher Conner, “[i]f there is a constant turnover of officers, prisoners could push

boundaries.” Hunter Walterman, ‘Wherever they’re needed most:’ New units support Missouri’s

See Alisa Nelson, Turnover Rate of Missouri’s Prison Guards Continues to Climb,

MissouriNet (12/15/2016), available at www.missourinet.com/2016/12/15/turnover-rate-ofmissouris-prison-guards-continues-to-climb/#:~:text=The%20percentage%20of%20Missouri%

0corrections corrections,ago%20to%20the%20current%2025%25 (according to the Missouri

Corrections Officers Association, 25% of officers quit each year); Mounting job vacancies push

state and local governments into a wage war for workers, Spectrum News (7/30/2023), available

at https://spectrumlocalnews.com/mo/st-louis/news/2023/07/28/mounting-job-vacancies-pushstate-and-local-gov-ernments-into-a-wage-war-for-workers- (“Almost 1 in 4 positions – more than

2,500 jobs – were empty in the Missouri Department of Corrections late last year.”).

understaffed prisons, KOMU (10/8/2023), available at www.komu.com/news/midmissourinews/

wherever-theyre-needed-most-new-units-support-missouris-understaffed-prisons/article_db5

f3a8e-63b2-11ee-8a06-37c35aed3acc.html. Also, correctional staff who “were more empathetic

to inmates . . . were quitting, [and that would] legitimiz[e] and heighten[ ] the presence of officers

known to escalate conflicts, antagonize offenders, and endanger themselves and fellow officers.”

Claudia Levens, Corrections staffing shortages persist, Jefferson City News Tribune (1/3/2023),

available at www.newstribune.com/news/2023/jan/03/corrections-staffing-short-ages-persist.

In short, executing Mr. Dorsey would harm the Potosi staff and that also could lead to the

prison being less safe for both staff and those incarcerated there.

GOALS OF THE DEATH PENALTY AND CATEGORICAL BARS TO

EXECUTION.

“The Eighth Amendment succinctly prohibits ‘[e]xcessive’ sanctions.” Atkins v. Virginia,

536 U.S. 304, 311 (2002) (quoting U.S. Const. amend VIII). It provides that “[e]xcessive bail

shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

U.S. Const. amend. VIII. The Amendment proscribes “all excessive punishments, as well as cruel

and unusual punishments that may or may not be excessive.” Atkins, 536 U.S. at n.7. The Eighth

Amendment’s protection against excessive or cruel and unusual punishments flows from the basic

“precept of justice that punishment for [a] crime should be graduated and proportioned to [the]

offense.” Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 367 (1910). Whether this requirement has been

fulfilled is determined not by the standards that prevailed when the Eighth Amendment was

adopted in 1791, but by the norms that “currently prevail.” Atkins, 536 U.S. at 311; id. (“A claim

that punishment is excessive is judged not by the standards that prevailed in 1685 when Lord

Jeffreys presided over the ‘Bloody Assizes’ or when the Bill of Rights was adopted, but rather by

those that currently prevail”). This Court has been clear that the Amendment “draw[s] its meaning

from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Trop v.

Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958). This is so because “[t]he standard of extreme cruelty is not

merely descriptive, but necessarily embodies a moral judgment. The standard itself remains the

same, but its applicability must change as the basic mores of society change.” Furman, 408 U.S.

at 382 (Burger, C. J., dissenting). Ultimately, “the Constitution contemplates that in the end our

own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty

under the Eighth Amendment.” Atkins, 536 U.S. at 313 (citing Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584,

597 (1977)).

This Court has repeatedly held that the evolving standards of decency must embrace and

express respect for the dignity of the person, and the punishment of those convicted of a crime

must conform to that rule. Trop, 356 U.S. at 100. Accordingly, the death penalty might serve

“two principal social purposes: retribution and deterrence.” 9 Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 183

(1976). The death penalty, however, “is excessive when it is grossly out of proportion to the crime

or it does not fulfill the two distinct social purposes served by the death penalty: retribution and

deterrence of capital crimes.” Kennedy, 554 U.S. 407, 441 (2008) (citing Gregg, 427 U.S. at 173,

183, 187); Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 592 (1977).

The Court elsewhere has also identified rehabilitation and incapacitation as rationales

for punishment. See Kennedy, 554 U.S. at 420 (in that capital case, the Court noted that

“punishment is justified under one or more of three principal rationales: rehabilitation, deterrence,

and retribution”); Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 999 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring)

(discussing rehabilitation, deterrence, and retribution); see also Williams v. People of State of N.Y.,

337 U.S. 241, 248 (1949) (“Reformation and rehabilitation of offenders have become important

goals of criminal jurisprudence”); see also infra at §C, pp. 24-29 (discussing both rehabilitation

and incapacitation).

When the death penalty “ceases realistically to further these purposes, . . . its imposition

would then be the pointless and needless extinction of life with only marginal contributions to any

discernible social or public purposes. A penalty with such negligible returns to the State would be

patently excessive and cruel and unusual punishment violative of the Eighth Amendment.”

Furman, 408 U.S. at 312 (opinion concurring in judgment). “A sentence lacking any legitimate

penological justification is by its nature disproportionate to the offense.” Graham v. Florida, 560

U.S. 58, 71 (2010); see also Gregg, 428 U.S. at 183 (“the sanction imposed cannot be so totally

without penological justification that it results in the gratuitous infliction of suffering”).

In the modern era, this Court has recognized multiple situations where executing a person

would not support the goals of retribution and deterrence and, thus, would be “the pointless and

needless extinction of life with only marginal contributions to any discernible social or public

purposes.” Furman, 408 U.S. at 312. Indeed, shortly after reinstating the death penalty in 1976,

this Court started carving out categorical exemptions of classes of people who cannot be executed

because the goals supporting capital punishment would not be furthered. Coker, 433 U.S. at 59396 (exempting individuals convicted of rape); Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 789-93, 798, 801

(1982) (exempting individuals convicted under felony murder theory who did not kill, attempt to

kill, or intend to kill).

The Court continued this trend by finding that a person with an intellectual disability is not

in the class of “only the most deserving of execution” and executing them would not further either

objective of retribution or deterrence. Atkins, 536 U.S. at 319-20. The Court then held that

executing juveniles who have killed someone violates the Eighth Amendment because neither

penological goal of deterrence nor retribution is furthered by taking the life of an immature child.

Roper, 543 U.S. at 572. The death penalty also is an unconstitutional sentence for child rape

because the goals of deterrence and retribution are not advanced by an execution. Kennedy, 554

U.S. at 420, 442, 445-46.

In Ford v. Wainwright, the Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits executing a

person who is incompetent to understand or appreciate the punishment. In that case, Ford’s

condition deteriorated while he was on death row to the point it was not clear whether he

understood why the state wanted to execute him. Ford, 477 U.S. at 401-04. In determining that

such a person cannot be executed, the Court based its decision on “one of the death penalty’s

critical justifications, its retributive force,” which is not furthered without the defendant’s

awareness of the pending penalty. Id., 477 U.S. at 421 (Powell, J., concurring). The Eighth

Amendment, in that situation, is “protect[ing] the dignity of society itself from the barbarity of

exacting mindless vengeance.” Id., 477 U.S. at 410. The Court also recognized that “the execution

of an insane person simply offends humanity.” Id., 477 U.S., at 407.

In Panetti v. Quarterman, the Court held that a person may not be executed not only when

suffering delusions, but also when he or she suffers from a psychotic disorder so that he or she

does not understand the reason for the imminent execution. The Court noted that such an execution

“provides no example to others,” i.e., it will not deter others from committing homicides. Panetti,

551 U.S. at 958 (quoting Ford, 477 U.S.at 407 ). The goal of retribution is not served because

“[t]he potential for a prisoner’s recognition of the severity of the offense and the objective of

community vindication are called in question” because “the prisoner’s mental state is so distorted

by a mental illness that his awareness of the crime and punishment has little or no relation to the

understanding of those concepts shared by the community as a whole.” Id., 551 U.S. at 958-59.

Where, as here, the penological goal of retribution is diminished, the evolving standards of

decency do not call for the law to administer an equally retributive sentence. In some situations,

the evolving standards of decency dictate that the penological goal of retribution can only be met

with incarceration. See Kennedy, 544 U.S. at 435-36.

These cases all recognize that the Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence prohibits the

execution of particular classes of people. The Court has determined that, when the goals of

deterrence and retribution are not met, the person should not be subjected to the law’s harshest

penalty. Instead, in this situation, the penalty of life without the possibility of parole serves the

goals set by society to punish those convicted of murder – including by furthering the goal of

rehabilitation. Furman, 408 U.S. at 304-05 (Brennan, J., concurring) (“When the overwhelming

number of criminals who commit capital crimes go to prison, it cannot be concluded that death

serves the purpose of retribution more effectively than imprisonment”); Roper, 543 U.S. at 57172 (“it is worth noting that the punishment of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole

is itself a severe sanction”). 10

REHABILITATION AND BECOMING “A CHANGED HUMAN BEING”

DURING THE MANY YEARS ON DEATH ROW.

It is noteworthy that, beyond identifying retribution and deterrence as goals of the death

penalty, the Court has also recognized that rehabilitation is an important objective of punishment

generally. 11 See Kennedy, 554 U.S. at 420; Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863, 896 (2015) (Scalia, J.,

Though the Missouri Supreme Court said that Mr. Dorsey “does not explain how his

execution would not further the penological goals of deterrence or retribution,” Appendix A

(Missouri Supreme Court opinion) at 19, this simply is not true. In his Rule 91 habeas petition,

Mr. Dorsey discussed the penological goals of deterrence and retribution (plus rehabilitation)

throughout much of the pleading. See Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to Missouri

Supreme Court Rule 91 and Suggestions in Support at 9, 27-34, 36-39 (deterrence and retribution),

34-41 (rehabilitation).

Incapacitation also is a justification for punishing criminal behavior. Powell v. Texas,

392 U.S. 514, 539 (1968) (Black, J., concurring) (“isolation of the dangerous has always been

with Thomas, J., concurring); see also Williams v. People of State of N.Y., 337 U.S. 241, 248

(1949) (“Reformation and rehabilitation of offenders have become important goals of criminal

jurisprudence”). What the Court has not yet addressed is whether evolving standards of decency

require a court to consider if a person who is rehabilitated while on death row should be ineligible

for execution.

Even for those who have received a death sentence, some small number of them can become

reformed and rehabilitated during their time on death row. In such cases, life in prison better

serves all the goals of punishment – deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation. As the Court has

recognized, “[i]n most cases justice is not better served by terminating the life of the perpetrator

considered an important function of the criminal law”); Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 99

(1992) (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (“Incapacitation for the protection of society is not an unusual

ground for incarceration”); see also Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 25 (2003) (explaining the

deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, and rehabilitation theories of punishment). While a deathsentenced person sits on death row, they necessarily are incapacitated. Should they be executed,

of course, this is no longer a factor. Nonetheless, the length of time that a person sits on death row

is now measured in decades. See Death Penalty Information Center, The Death Penalty in 2023:

Year End Report, available at https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/dpic-reports/dpicyear-end-reports/the-death-penalty-in-2023-year-end-report#executed-prisoners-spent-longer-ondeath-row (“Those executed in 2023 spent an average of nearly 23 years on death row. . . . More

than half (54%) of the prisoners had been on death row for more than 20 years”). These people

are certainly incapacitated during these many years. Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863, 929-30 (2015)

(Breyer, J., dissenting) (a death sentence “does, of course, incapacitate the offender”). For those

whose sentences are converted to a life-without-parole sentence via clemency or litigation, they

remain incapacitated for the rest of their lives. Id. at 930 (“But the major alternative to capital

punishment – namely, life in prison without possibility of parole – also incapacitates”).

Part and parcel of incapacitating those convicted of a crime is the laudable objective of safely

managing the prison population. If perfect behavior meets the same fate as disruptive or assaultive

conduct, there is no reason to choose to be a model prisoner, especially in a maximum-security

facility where some might see a benefit to cultivating a dangerous persona. See Appendix E (Gold

Report) at 12 (if “there is no reward for pro-social behavior,” other Potosi inmates may “see little

incentive in adhering to prison rules and instead may become demoralized, rebellious, and

uncooperative, leading to substantial challenges for staff in maintaining order”); id. (“there will be

an appreciably heightened probability of emotional disturbance and disruptive and uncooperative

behavior among other inmates at Potosi who will be demoralized by evidence that even Brian’s

exceptional behavior and unsurpassed reputation among prison staff did not mitigate his death

sentence”).

rather than confining him and preserving the possibility that he and the system will find ways to

allow him to understand the enormity of his offense.” Kennedy, 554 U.S. at 447.

In that same vein, “[t]he [death-sentenced] offender may have found himself a changed

human being” after many years on death row. Glossip, 576 U.S. at 932 (Breyer, J., dissenting).

The “social goal of retribution” is not furthered in some situations, such as with the execution of

an incompetent person, because the person being executed “for all moral purposes is not the same

person who committed the crime.” Ford v. Wainwright, 752 F.2d 526, 531 & n.3 (11th Cir. 1985)

(Clark, J., dissenting), rev’d by Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986). In short, when the

offender has lived a “second lifetime” on death row and may well be a very different person than

the one who was originally sentenced to death, execution should no longer be a legitimate

expression of retribution.

Carol S. Steiker & Jordan M. Steiker, Entrenchment and/or

Stabilization: Reflections on (Another) Two Decades of Constitutional Regulation of Capital

Punishment, 30 Law And Inequality 211, 230-31 (2012); see also State v. Andrews, 843 P.2d 1027,

1033-34 (Utah 1992) (Stewart, J., concurring) (“if I were a member of the Board of Pardons, I

would vote to commute the death sentence to a sentence of life imprisonment” because the

condemned person “today is not the same person he was” at the time of the crime”), cert. denied,

505 U.S. 1233 (1992); Jones v. Mississippi, 141 S.Ct. 1307, 1323 (2021) (in the case of a juvenile

being resentenced for murder after having spent 17 years in prison, the majority opinion recognized

the value of having “maintained a good record in prison and that he is a different person now than

he was when he killed his grandfather”).

The passage of time inherent in any capital case leaves ample time for some small number

of those on death row to achieve this transformation. Mr. Dorsey has now been incarcerated for

just over 17 years.

Many members of this Court have noted that “neither ground [i.e., retribution and deterrence]

retains any force for prisoners who have spent some 17 years under a sentence of death.” Lackey

v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045, 1045 (1995) (Stevens, J., memorandum respecting denial of certiorari).

Likewise, “the longer the delay, the weaker the justification for imposing the death penalty in terms

of punishment’s basic retributive or deterrent purposes.” Knight v. Florida, 120 S.Ct. 459, 462

(1999) (Breyer, J., dissenting from denial of cert.)); see also Glossip, 576 U.S. at 929-35 (Breyer,

J., joined by Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (making the same point and noting the average time spent

on death row in 2015 was about 17 years); Bucklew v. Precythe, 139 S.Ct. 1112, 1144-45 (2019)

(Breyer, J., joined by Ginsburg, J., Sotomayor, J., Kagan, J., dissenting).

“[T]he additional deterrent effect from an actual execution now, on the one hand, as

compared to 17 years on death row followed by the prisoner’s continued incarceration for life, on

the other, seems minimal.” 12 Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. at 1045 (Stevens, J., memorandum

respecting denial of certiorari). In fact, “the deterrent value of incarceration during that period of

uncertainty [while awaiting execution] may well be comparable to the consequences of the

ultimate step itself.” Coleman v. Balkcom, 451 U.S. 949, 952 (1981) (Stevens, J., respecting denial

of certiorari).

Likewise, “after such an extended time, the acceptable state interest in retribution has

arguably been satisfied by the severe punishment already inflicted” by the years on death row.

Lackey, 514 U.S. at 1045 (Stevens, J., memorandum respecting denial of certiorari). These

Whether the death penalty actually has any deterrent effect at all is debatable. See

Glossip, 576 U.S. at 930-31 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (citing numerous studies showing no deterrent

effect); Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 79 (2008) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment) (“Despite 30

years of empirical research in the area, there remains no reliable statistical evidence that capital

punishment in fact deters potential offenders”). The relevant point here, however, is that any

deterrent effect that might exist is reduced to near zero when the execution takes 17 or more years

to happen.

individual opinions are consistent with Court precedent recognizing that “when a prisoner

sentenced by a court to death is confined in the penitentiary awaiting the execution of the sentence,

one of the most horrible feelings to which he can be subjected during that time is the uncertainty

during the whole of it.” In re Medley, 134 U.S. 160, 172 (1890). And, if the person is not ever

executed, “the community and victims’ families will know that, even without a further death, the

offender will serve decades in prison under a sentence of life without parole.” Glossip, 576 U.S.

at 932-33 (Breyer, J., dissenting).

And yet, despite being subjected to those “horrible feelings” for 17 years, Mr. Dorsey has

lived such a life that more than 70 prison staff members are advocating that he not be executed.

This unprecedented support from the staff is evidence that the penological goal of rehabilitation

has been accomplished in this case, and that the goals of capital punishment – retribution and

deterrence – would not be meaningfully furthered by his execution. “Brian’s record, general

behavior, and quality of interactions with officers and fellow detainees epitomizes the ideal of

rehabilitation.” Appendix E (Gold Report) at 11.

The person who Mr. Dorsey is today is not the same person who committed the crimes in

2006. If the goals of punishment mean anything, they must mean that Mr. Dorsey’s life should be

spared. Executing Mr. Dorsey after 17 years of extraordinary reformation and impeccable conduct

will not sufficiently further the goals of retribution and deterrence. Instead, a life sentence for Mr.

Dorsey best furthers all the goals of punishment – including rehabilitation. When the person to be

executed is not the same person who was convicted of committing the crime, “[a] penalty with

such negligible returns to the State would be patently excessive and cruel and unusual punishment

violative of the Eighth Amendment.” Furman, 408 U.S. at 312. This Court should grant certiorari

to determine whether rehabilitation must be considered by a court in those rare cases where the

death-sentenced person can show that he or she has been fully rehabilitated. Because of Mr.

Dorsey’s unsurpassed record on Missouri’s death row, this case presents the best vehicle for the

Court to take up this question.

In sum, this Court has held that the Eighth Amendment demands that some offenders be

categorically exempt from execution. This Court should grant certiorari to determine whether a

condemned person who falls into the rare category of an offender who has shown full rehabilitation

and redemptive transformation should be categorically exempt from execution.

GOOD PRISON BEHAVIOR ALREADY IS RECOGNIZED AS AN

IMPORTANT FACTOR IN DETERMINING WHO SHOULD AND WHO

SHOULD NOT BE EXECUTED.

This Court has been clear that a person’s behavior while incarcerated certainly is an

important and relevant fact for a sentencer to consider when determining if a defendant should be

sentenced to die. In Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (1986), the Court held that a defendant

must be allowed to present evidence of successful adaptation to incarceration. A person facing a

death sentence has a constitutional right to present evidence of his “well-behaved and peaceful

adjustment to life in prison,” because it is “by its nature relevant to the sentencing determination.”

Id., 476 U.S. at 7. “[T]here is no question but that [this evidence] would be ‘mitigating’ in the

sense that [it] might serve ‘as a basis for a sentence less than death.’” Id., 476 U.S. at 4-5 (quoting

Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604 (1978)). Therefore, “evidence that the defendant would not

pose a danger if spared (but incarcerated) must be considered potentially mitigating.” Id. at 5.

Likewise, the Court has found that evidence showing “commendations for helping to crack

a prison drug ring and for returning a guard’s missing wallet, or the testimony of prison officials

who described [the defendant] as among the inmates ‘least likely to act in a violent, dangerous or

provocative way’” is relevant evidence when making decisions about the imposition of the death

penalty. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 396 (2000); see also id. (the Court also discussed

evidence that the defendant “seemed to thrive in a more regimented and structured environment”

and that he “was proud of the carpentry degree he earned while in prison”). This is clearly

established law from this Court.

As the Court has been clear that prison-adjustment evidence is relevant and crucial for jurors

to consider when deciding the sentence to be imposed, it should grant certiorari to consider whether

these same factors should also be relevant after the issuance of a death warrant when determining

whether executing a rehabilitated death row inmate violates the Eighth Amendment. Though the

timing of the decision is different and the venue for making the determination is not the same, the

recognition that behavior in prison should play a role on who is allowed to be executed is the same.

GOOD BEHAVIOR WHILE ON DEATH ROW IS RECOGNIZED AS A

REASON TO SPARE SOMEONE FROM BEING EXECUTED.

In the modern era of the death penalty (since its reimposition in 1976 following Gregg v.

Georgia), at least seven people have been spared from execution because of good behavior while

incarcerated. See Death Penalty Information Center, List of Clemencies Since 1976, available at

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/clemency/list-of-clemencies-since-1976.

The

reasons given for granting clemency in these cases included an exemplary prison record, the

rehabilitation of the inmate, excellent behavior in prison, exemplary prison behavior emphasized

by a former corrections officer, statements from prison officials that the crime was an outlier from

his upstanding life in prison, the commission of only one minor infraction over thirty years in

prison, and exemplary conduct and transformation while in prison. 13

This information was compiled by the Death Penalty Information Center. The cases

discussed, in order, are William Moore (1990), William Saunders (1997), Willie James Hall

This number of grants of clemency represent two seemingly contrary yet related concepts.

On the one hand, this shows that behavior such as Mr. Dorsey has shown can indeed merit setting

aside a sentence of death. On the other hand, these grants are relatively rare.14 But, they are rare

precisely because very few inmates can make a compelling case that their life should be spared for

this reason. The takeaway is that excellent prison behavior is a compelling reason to spare

someone from execution, but those who qualify on this basis are exceedingly rare. Should this

Court grant review, this provides a basis by which to measure these metrics and their frequency.

Noting that governors grant clemency on this basis does not make this a nonjusticiable

clemency application, which is what the Missouri Supreme Court said. See Appendix A (Missouri

Supreme Court Opinion) at 20-21. Bases for clemency are often – even mostly – presented to

courts first as legal claims. 15 That is what Mr. Dorsey has done here with this legal claim.

(2004), Samuel David Crowe (2008), Daniel Greene (2012), Jimmy Meders (2020), and Renaldo

Hudson (2020). Death Penalty Information Center, List of Clemencies Since 1976, supra.

For perspective, there have been 1586 executions since 1976. See Death Penalty

Information Center, Facts About the Death Penalty (updated 3/21/2024), available at https://dpiccdn.org/production/ documents/pdf/FactSheet.pdf.

Below are a just few of the multitude of possible examples where a governor has

granted clemency for a reason that had previously been litigated:

In 2008, the Governor of Virginia granted clemency because Percy Walton was

incompetent to be executed. But see Walton v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2006)

(court found him competent to be executed), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1189 (2006).

In 2012, the Governor of Ohio commuted the sentence of Ronald Post because there were

too many problems with his ineffective trial counsel’s representation. But see Post v.

Bradshaw, 621 F.3d 406 (6th Cir. 2010) (habeas court rejected claim of ineffective

assistance of trial counsel), cert. denied, 563 U.S. 1009 (2011).

In 2003, the Governor of Louisiana commuted Herbert Welcome’s sentence to life because

he suffered from an intellectual disability. But see State v. Welcome, 458 So.2d 1235 (La.

1983) (the question rejected by the court was “whether the death sentence is appropriate

for this mental retardate”), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1088 (1985).

CONCLUSION

It already is clear that when the death penalty “ceases realistically to further these

[penological] purposes, . . . its imposition would then be the pointless and needless extinction of

life with only marginal contributions to any discernible social or public purposes. A penalty with

such negligible returns to the State would be patently excessive and cruel and unusual punishment

violative of the Eighth Amendment.” Furman, 408 U.S. at 312 (opinion concurring in judgment).

Mr. Dorsey’s rehabilitation, his unblemished prison record during more than 17 years on death

row, and the unprecedented support from more than 70 correctional officers puts him in a unique

class of persons for whom the penological goals of retribution and deterrence are not furthered.

This Court should grant certiorari to determine whether a death-row inmate’s remarkable

redemption and rehabilitation during the many years while on death row makes a person ineligible

for execution under the Eighth Amendment.

In 2003, the Governor of Kentucky granted clemency because Kevin Stanford was 17 at

the time of the murder. But see Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989) (execution of a

17-year-old was constitutional), rev’d by Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (Roper

was decided two years after clemency was granted to Mr. Stanford).

In 1998, the Governor of Texas granted clemency because of Henry Lucas’s possible

innocence. But see Lucas v. Johnson, 132 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1998) (habeas relief denied

despite claim of newly discovered evidence showing actual innocence), cert. denied, 524

U.S. 965 (1998).

All of these clemency examples can be found at Death Penalty Information Center, List of

Clemencies Since 1976, available at https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/clemency/

list-of-clemencies-since-1976.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Kirk J. Henderson

KIRK J. HENDERSON

Counsel of Record

ARIN MELISSA BRENNER

Assistant Federal Public Defenders

Federal Public Defender for the

Western District of Pennsylvania

1001 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1500

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

412-644-6565

kirk_henderson@fd.org

Supreme Court Bar No. 229934

Counsel for Petitioner Brian J. Dorsey

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.