Whether the recantation of bitemark evidence used to convict a death row inmate warrants a new trial under federal constitutional due process standards

No question identified. : CAPITAL CASE No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 2024 JAMES RANDALL ROGERS, Petitioner, v. STATE OF GEORGIA, Respondent. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA TO THE HONORABLE CLARENCE THOMAS, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and Circuit Justice for the Eleventh Circuit: Petitioner James Rogers, by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 13, respectfully requests an extension of time of thirty (30) days to file his Petition for Writ of Certiorari in this Court, up to and including Thursday, August 28, 2025. In his Petition, Mr. Rogers will seek review of the order of the Supreme Court of Georgia denying his application for discretionary review and affirming the denial of his extraordinary motion for new trial on April 3, 2025. See Attachment A. The Supreme Court of Georgia denied Mr. Rogers’s motion for reconsideration on April 30, 2025. See Attachment B. Mr. Rogers invokes the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a). His time to file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in this Court elapses on July 29, 2025. See S. Ct. R. 13.3 (“[I]f a petition for rehearing is timely filed in the lower court by any party . . . the time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari for all parties .. . runs from the date of the denial of rehearing.”). He therefore makes this request more than ten (10) days before the date his petition would be due without an extension of time. In support of this request, Mr. Rogers shows the following as good cause: Mr. Rogers filed an extraordinary motion for new trial on November 20, 2020, in Floyd County, Georgia, arguing, inter alia, that the now recanted bitemark evidence used to convict Mr. Rogers and sentence him to death warranted a new trial. The court held an evidentiary hearing in 2022, and it denied the motion on February 5, 2025. See Attachment C. The Supreme Court of Georgia denied Mr. Rogers’s application for discretionary review on April 3, 2025, and then denied his motion for reconsideration on April 30, 2025. Undersigned counsel requests this extension of time because of professional obligations in this and other cases. Among other hearings and filing deadlines, counsel has hearings in a pretrial death penalty case already scheduled for May, June, and July of 2025. In addition, a Petition for Writ of Certiorari is essential in this capital case because the issues Mr. Rogers will raise in his petition implicate important issues of federal constitutional law and the right of the State of Georgia to execute him in light of new evidence. With an extension of thirty (30) days, undersigned counsel will be able to present the relevant issues to this Court. WHEREFORE, Mr. Rogers respectfully requests that this Court grant him a thirty (30) day extension of time within which to file his Petition for Writ of Certiorari, up to and including August 28, 2025. Respectfully submitted, this 12th day of May, 2025. /s! Mark Loudon-Brown MaArK LOUDON-BROWN SOUTHERN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 60 Walter Street, NW Atlanta, GA 30303 Tel: (404) 688-1202 Fax: (404) 688-9440 Counsel of Record for Petitioner PROOF OF SERVICE Thereby certify that, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 29, on May 12, 2025, I served a copy of the foregoing via first-class mail, postage prepaid, upon counsel for the Respondent: Natalee Staats Floyd County District Attorney 3 Government Plaza, Suite 108 Rome, Georgia 30161 Sabrina Graham Assistant Attorney General 40 Capitol Square SW Atlanta, Georgia 30334 sgraham@law.ga.gov /s/ Mark Loudon-Brown Mark Loudon-Brown ATTACHMENT A SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA Case No. S25D0797 April 03, 2025 The Honorable Supreme Court met pursuant to adjournment. The following order was passed: JAMES RANDALL ROGERS v. THE STATE. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby de