Background
William Bracey was convicted of first-degree murder in nineteen ninety-five. He filed a habeas petition in two thousand eleven which was denied as untimely. In two thousand sixteen, the Third Circuit issued a decision in Dennis that changed the law regarding Brady disclosures. Bracey then filed a Rule sixty-one motion to reopen his petition based on this new rule.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied the six Cox factors to determine if extraordinary circumstances existed. The first factor favored Bracey because the change in law was material. The fourth factor favored him because he was diligent in filing. However, the second factor tilted against him as he lacked a likelihood of success on the merits. The third factor disfavored him due to the finality of the judgment and comity concerns. The fifth factor did not apply as he failed to show actual innocence. The sixth factor was not applicable as he was not sentenced to death. The court concluded that the balance of factors did not support reopening the case.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the high bar for reopening final habeas judgments under Rule sixty-one. It clarifies that a change in law regarding Brady material does not automatically justify reopening a petition if other factors like finality and lack of actual innocence weigh heavily against it.