DA Mulroy works with Public Rights Project to Oppose State Legislature's Attempt to Strip DAs of Some Authority

Today DA Mulroy will argue his case, opposing the State Legislature’s attempt to strip Tennessee of authority to make decisions in post-conviction death penalty proceedings. Yesterday, the DA, along with Public Rights Project filed a brief opposing the state legislature’s attempt.

DA Mulroy was elected as a reform candidate in 2022, defeating an incumbent DA who had faced criticism for her persistent refusal to acknowledge the claims of a death row prisoner whose intellectual disability made executing him unconstitutional. In recent months, DA Mulroy decided to use his discretion as an elected DA to not contest similar claims brought by a death row prisoner. The Tennessee Legislature responded by passing a law that strips the state’s elected DAs of their power to represent the state in trial-level post-conviction proceedings in capital cases–proceedings that are used in Tennessee to bring forth newly discovered evidence–and transferred it to the state’s unelected Attorney General.

“This law transfers the most solemn power a DA has—cases literally involving life and death—-from a locally elected resident of the county to a distant, unelected state officer. It effectively disenfranchises the voters who voted for 32 DAs across the state,” said DA Mulroy. “I felt it was my duty to point out its unconstitutionality. I thank PRP for assisting me in doing so.”

With PRP as counsel, DA Mulroy filed in support of a death row prisoner’s motion to disqualify the Attorney General from representing the state in trial-level post-conviction proceedings in his capital case. Our brief argues that the recently enacted law violates the Tennessee Constitution, which gives DAs–not the AG–the exclusive responsibility and duty to seek justice by evaluating new evidence in capital cases to decide whether seeking the death penalty is appropriate. Furthermore, we argue that the recently enacted law violates the Tennessee Constitution by transferring this authority to the unelected Attorney General, thereby depriving local voters of their ability to have their chosen DA implement their values and policy preferences in criminal proceedings.

 The case is to be heard today, June 2.