Whether a capital defendant's waiver of mitigation evidence is knowing and voluntary under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments when the defendant suffered severe childhood trauma and psychological compulsions that motivated the waiver, and whether a jury's exposure to extraneous prejudicial information about a defendant's involvement in an unrelated crime violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury in a capital case

in this capital case and because of the seriousness of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals’ errors. The first issue relates to the clearly established rule that a jury’s exposure to extraneous prejudicial information violates a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. In this case, the jury foreperson told the other jurors extraneous, wrong, and prejudicial information: that Mr. Peraita “murdered three or four people” during a notorious local robbery in the 1990s. Although Mr. Peraita was involved in the robbery, it is undisputed that another person, not Mr. Peraita, shot the victims. And the trial court had expressly barred the details about the robbery from being presented at trial. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals incorrectly concluded that this prejudicial outside information (which the trial judge specifically excluded from presentation at trial) was not extraneous. It therefore held that the dissemination of this (again, wrong and prejudicial) information was not juror misconduct. That ruling is clearly wrong, and whether a defendant can be deprived of the constitutional right to an impartial jury when faced with the gravest of punishments is an issue that calls for Supreme Court review. The second issue relates to the clearly established rule that important and fundamental constitutional rights cannot be validly waived by a criminal defendant unless the waiver is knowing and voluntary. Here, Mr. Peraita undisputedly suffered severe and unremitting physical, sexual, and emotional abuse during his childhood that, among other things, resulted in childhood onset post-traumatic stress disorder and powerful psychological compulsions to avoid reminders of his painful history. The rehashing of that history, which would have been necessary during the presentation of his mitigation evidence, compelled Mr. Peraita to make the selfdestructive choice to tell his counsel that he wanted no mitigation evidence presented at his trial. Contrary to the conclusion of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, under these circumstances, a capital defendant’s stated desire to present zero mitigation evidence cannot be considered either knowing or voluntary and, therefore, is not a valid waiver. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals’ incorrect decision on this critical constitutional issue also calls for Supreme Court review. 2. Undersigned counsel respectfully submits that the extension of time requested here is also warranted because counsel of record and additional counsel in this case, who are representing Mr. Peraita on a pro bono basis, have multiple obligations that would make it difficult to complete a petition for a writ of certiorari by the current deadline. Those obligations for counsel of record include matters pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, and multiple proceedings before the U.S. Surface Transportation Board. Additionally, following the Alabama Supreme Court’s judgment on June 2, 2023, counsel were preparing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus for Mr. Peraita, which was required to be filed within the timeframe set forth by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. CONCLUSION For these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests an extension of 60 days, to and including October 30, 2023, within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in this case. August 14, 2023 Respectfully submitted, MATTHEW J. WARREN* STEPHANIE P. HALES MADELEINE JOSEPH SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street