Tennessee appellate panel hears dispute over new scientific evidence, timeliness and procedural route in Mays appeals

An appellate panel in Tennessee heard oral argument over whether newly presented scientific opinions showing the infant victim’s injuries were not caused by abuse entitle Russell Mays and Kaye Mays to post‑conviction relief, and whether the appeal of Russell Mays should proceed as an appeal of right rather than under the court’s discretionary review rule.

The procedural question animated much of the argument. Jason Gishner, attorney for appellant Russell Mays, told the court: "Russell Mays has been locked up for more than 2 decades for a crime he didn't commit." Gishner argued the post‑conviction court granted a hearing on a colorable claim under the cited statute, held a two‑day evidentiary (bifurcated) hearing, then denied substantive relief on the merits; under those facts, he said, the appeal should proceed under Rule 3 as an appeal of right with de novo review rather than under Rule 28’s discretionary standard.

The appellants also pressed the substantive claim. Melissa Dix, counsel for appellant Kaye Mays, said seven experts testified at the post‑conviction hearing and "there is no evidence of abuse or inflicted trauma in this case," arguing those unanimous expert opinions constitute new scientific evidence warranting relief. Dix said…