RITCHIE v. WILSON, 1:08-cv-00503

Benjamin Ritchie was sentenced to death in Indiana in 2002 for the murder of a police officer and has exhausted direct appeal, post-conviction, and federal habeas relief avenues.
Ritchie’s trial and post-conviction proceedings included arguments on cognitive impairments, with mitigation evidence presented concerning potential Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) and childhood lead poisoning, but FASD was not definitively established or presented.
In recent efforts, new expert evidence was gathered indicating Ritchie likely has FASD, and his latest counsel asserts that previous attorneys failed to appropriately raise this or investigate childhood lead poisoning as mitigating evidence.
Ritchie, through new counsel, sought relief from the prior habeas judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) and moved to stay execution, arguing prior post-conviction counsel were ineffective and had a conflict of interest in raising Martinez-Trevino claims.
The court considered whether the Rule 60(b)(6) motion, filed many years after the relevant legal developments and changes in counsel, was timely and whether it justified staying execution.

Issue	Ritchie’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Timeliness of Rule 60(b)(6) motion	Delay justified due to ineffective/conflicted counsel; motion timely after new counsel appointed	Motion untimely; no valid reason for delay given time since legal change and appointment of new counsel	Motion was not filed within a "reasonable time," so not likely to succeed
Applicability of Martinez-Trevino exception	Conflict of interest meant prior counsel could not raise ineffective assistance properly, excusing procedural default	Procedural default not excused; prior counsel's performance and timing bars relief	Exception does not allow indefinite delay; conflict did not excuse years-long delay
Irreparable injury and balancing of equities	Execution would result in irreparable harm; stay needed for justice	State and public have interest in timely execution; delay undermines finality	Equities and finality concerns weigh against a stay
Entitlement to Certificate of Appealability	Substantial legal questions warrant COA	N/A	COA granted given debatable legal issues

Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (exception to procedural default for ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel)
Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (expansion of Martinez exception to certain state systems)
Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (distinguishing Rule 60(b) motions from successive habeas petitions)
Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100 (Rule 60(b)(6) can provide relief in cases involving serious constitutional violations)
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (factors for granting a stay of execution)