Table of Contents Included in Document 

Memorandum in Support of Habeas Petition in Child Sex Abuse Case

Open Records Request

Letter to Defense Expert

Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

Moiton for New Trial 

Motion for Issuance and Enforcement of Subpoena for Additional Medical Records 

Ruling on Motion for New Trial and Ruling by Georgia Court of Appeals

Argument: With proper investigation, preparation, and presentation by the defense in this case, there is absolutely overwhelming evidence that supports Mr. Nowill's total innocence. Mr. Nowill is presently seven years into the service of his sentence of thirty years in prison because, to date, no sitting judge or sitting jury had presented to them the complete evidence in this case for their consideration. Mr. Nowill is, in fact, innocent.

Mr. Nowill is the father of the alleged victim, Heather Nowill. On August 13, 2000, Heather, then aged 16, claimed that her father had been having a sexual relationship with her over the previous four years since she was 12 years old. She claimed this sexual relationship involved digital penetration of her vagina, mutual oral sex between she and her father, and full acts of sexual intercourse with complete and full penetration of her vagina by her father's penis occurring 3 to 4 times weekly for the duration of the 4 year period of time. Stunned when he first confronted with these allegations on the day of her outcry, and continuing for 2 years including his testimony before the jury in this case, Mr. Nowill denied any sexual contact with his daughter and consistently has maintained his innocence.

On the day of her alleged outcry Heather was required to undergo a medical examination at University Hospital. The complete report of this examination was not provided to trial counsel by the State. Trial counsel did not independently request of subpoena the medical records of the examination. The State did not call the doctors who performed the medical examination to testify in the trial. Also, despite the extensive and ongoing allegations of intercourse by Heather, trial counsel did not request or subpoena the medical records from her regular doctor throughout the period of time in question. With virtually nothing except the word of the alleged victim the case proceeded to trial. Even law enforcement personnel admitted there was absolutely no physical evidence to support the allegation.

Order granting ineffective assistance of counsel claim for securities fraud.

US District Court Southern District of New York: Walsh v. USA; Memorandum and Order

A PowerPoint presentation outlining ineffective assistance of counsel.  

Brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner.

Argument:  Ineffective assistance of counsel in an initial-review collateral proceeding should excuse the default of a substantial ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim. The right to effective appellate counsel is critically important to the fair administration of criminal justice. Defendants cannot raise ineffective assistance of appellate counsel on direct appeal and are ill-equipped to present that claim on collateral review without counsel’s assistance. Unless Martinez applies to appellate-ineffectiveness claims, attorney error in the initial-review collateral proceeding will likely deprive the prisoner of any opportunity for review. 

Brief of the Idaho Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the National Association of Criminal Defense lawyers as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner.

Argument: A presumption of prejudice is appropriate because defendants often succeed on appeal despite waivers. Defendants often succeed on appeal based on issues beyond the scope of their particular waivers. Defendants often succeed on appeal even on claims within the scope of a waiver. The decisions below ignores the potential for meritorious claims even in cases involving appeal waivers. Postconviction proceedings are not an adequate substitute for direct appellate review. Claims that are not raised on direct appeal generally cannot be raised in postconviction proceedings. Higher standards apply in postconviction proceedings. There is no constitutional right to counsel in postconviction proceedings.