Written By JR Robinson

MEMPHIS, Tenn. — Andrew Hayes’ long-running fight to clear his name will continue after the court said it would keep reviewing the matter and reconvene on Oct. 9, delaying a decision in a case where Shelby County District Attorney Steve Mulroy says the evidence shows Hayes was wrongfully convicted.

In a statement following the hearing, Mulroy sharply disagreed with the court’s position on a central legal question: whether the Shelby County District Attorney’s Office can join the defense in seeking relief for Hayes, or whether that authority belongs to the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office.

“It is entirely appropriate for the prosecution to agree with the defense when the prosecution is convinced that the facts and the law justify that position,” Mulroy said. “In fact, it would be unethical for a prosecutor to do otherwise.”

The dispute is not simply procedural. It has become the latest barrier between Hayes and a possible release after he has spent nearly two decades imprisoned for the 2007 killing of Danny Harris.

Hayes was convicted in Harris’ death and later sentenced in 2010. Harris, 55, was found beaten to death at the Woodchase Apartments in Cordova in 2007. But the Shelby County District Attorney’s Office announced in January that its Conviction Review Unit’s investigation had uncovered evidence leading prosecutors to conclude Hayes was the wrong man.

According to reporting from the evidentiary hearing, Hayes has an IQ below 70 and prosecutors have said he gave a false confession after a 27-hour interrogation. The case against him has raised broader questions about interrogation practices, the vulnerability of people with intellectual disabilities in the criminal-justice system, and what should happen when prosecutors later determine that a conviction they once defended was unjust.

New evidence, new questions

The more recent investigation pointed to Tammy Vance and her daughter, Sarah Lucas, as the people authorities now believe were responsible for Harris’ killing, according to reports on the case. Vance had already been serving a life sentence after pleading guilty in connection with the murder and died in custody. Lucas was arrested and extradited from Oklahoma, but died in February before she was due to appear in Shelby County court.

At this week’s hearing, evidence included a letter discovered in Georgia in which Vance allegedly wrote that she allowed an innocent man to go to jail to protect her daughter. The court also heard a recording of a phone call in which Lucas allegedly confessed to the crime.

Hayes’ attorneys have moved to vacate his conviction, and Mulroy has said his office will not oppose that effort. Yet the case remains unresolved because of the jurisdictional conflict now before the court.

Mulroy’s argument

Mulroy’s statement frames the disagreement as both an ethical and legal issue.

He argues that when elected local prosecutors review evidence and conclude a person was wrongly convicted, they should be able to acknowledge that conclusion in court rather than continue defending a conviction they no longer believe is valid.

“The case law is also clear that, at the trial-court level, the appropriate office is the District Attorney’s Office—not the Attorney General’s Office,” Mulroy said.

The DA’s office says it hopes the court will allow full briefing and arguments on the jurisdictional issue before making a final decision.

For Hayes, the question is urgent: Whether the court will act on the local prosecutor’s conclusion that he was wrongfully convicted, or whether legal disagreements over who may speak for the state will further extend his imprisonment.

What happens next

The court is scheduled to reconvene Oct. 9 as it continues its review.

By then, Hayes’ case could become a significant test of how Tennessee courts handle post-conviction cases in which prosecutors and defense attorneys agree that a conviction should be set aside. It also puts a difficult public question at the center of the proceeding: If the office that prosecuted a case later determines that the conviction was wrong, how quickly can the legal system correct it?

For Andrew Hayes and his family, the answer has already been nearly 20 years in the making.