Whether the Confrontation Clause requires live testimony from a sheriff's deputy to authenticate a protection order's return of service in a capital murder prosecution

No question identified. : A.) On August 23, 2024, the Court of Criminal Appeals denied Mr. Henderson’s application for rehearing. (Attached as Exhibit B.) On June 20, 2025, the Alabama Supreme Court denied Mr. Henderson’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari. (Attached as Exhibit C.) 3. Pursuant to Rules 13.1, 13.3, and 30.1 of the Rules of this Court, a petition for a writ of certiorari is due to be filed on or before September 18, 2025. In accordance with Rule 13.5, this application is being filed at least 10 days in advance of the filing date for the petition for a writ of certiorari. 4. This is a capital case in which the death penalty has been imposed. Mr. Henderson is incarcerated at Holman Correctional Facility in Atmore, Alabama. 5. Mr. Henderson’s case raises serious questions regarding the constitutionality and reliability of his capital convictions and death sentence that require careful presentation in his petition for certiorari. 6. Undersigned counsel currently is involved in many other death penalty cases, including numerous cases on direct appeal. Many of these cases have imminent filing deadlines and require counsel’s immediate attention. Moreover, the State of Alabama has no system for providing legal representation to death row prisoners after the completion of direct appeal. There are many Alabama death row prisoners currently without counsel facing filing deadlines in this Court, in state postconviction cases, and in the lower federal courts. Counsel is actively engaged in assisting these prisoners. 7. Undersigned counsel has taken on Mr. Henderson’s case pro bono but 2 needs an additional thirty-two (32) days to prepare a petition that adequately apprises this Court of the relevant facts and law in this case. For these reasons, Mr. Henderson respectfully requests an additional thirty-two (32) days in which to file his petition for writ of certiorari, thereby changing to October 20, 2025, the date on or by which it must be filed. Respectfully submitted, s/ Alicia D’Addario ALICIA D’ADDARIO Counsel of Record Equal Justice Initiative 122 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Phone: (334) 269-1803 Fax: (334) 269-1806 Email: adaddario@eji.org September 8, 2025 Counsel for Christopher Henderson Exhibit A Henderson v. State, --So.3d ---(2024) 2024 WL 1946585 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. NOT YET RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama. Christopher Matthew HENDERSON v. STATE of Alabama CR-21-0044 | May 3, 2024 Synopsis Background: Defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court, Madison County, No. CC-17-3064, of 15 counts of capital murder and was sentenced to death. Holdings: The Court of Criminal Appeals, McCool, J., held that: trial court closure of courtroom during pretrial status conference for defendant's trial did not constitute plain error; trial court's decision to close the courtroom before conducting the guilt-phase charging conference and the penalty-phase charging conference did not constitute plain error; trial court error, if any, in “muting” videoconferencing system feed during three bench conferences of capital murder trial did not amount to plain error; WESTLAW as a matter of first impression, State was required to prove that a court had issued a protection order against the defendant and in favor of the victim and that the order was in effect at the time of the victim's death, in order to convict defendant of capital murder; admitting return of service without the testimony of sheriff's deputy who served the protection order did not violate Confrontation Clause; testimony from victim's brother, brother's wife, and police investigator was sufficient to authenticate surveillance-camera video footage from the victim's house; and defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction on reckless manslaughter as a lesser-included offense of the capital-murder. Affirmed. Kellum, J., filed an opinion dissenting in part and concurring in the result in part. Procedural Po