Six months later, I’m sitting on a metal stool in the death row visitor’s section of Riverbend Correctional Facility in Nashville. Riverbend is what they call a state-of-the-art facility. It’s sprawling and modern, but my experience tells me the place is misnamed. Men who spend time in a maximum security prison do not come out “corrected.” They come out more cunning.

On the other side of a thick pane of Plexiglas is thirty-eight-year-old Brian Thomas Gant. I was appointed to represent Gant nearly fifteen years ago. He was my first death penalty client, accused of murdering his mother- in-law and raping his five-year-old niece. There was no forensic evidence against him-DNA testing hadn’t yet become the gold standard-and seemingly no motive for the crime. But the niece, a youngster named Natalie Booze, told the police that the man who raped her “looked like Uncle Brian.” The police immediately focused their investigation on Gant, and the girl’s story quickly changed from “looked like Uncle Brian” to “ was Uncle Brian.” He was arrested a week after the crime was committed. I did the best I could at trial, but I couldn’t overcome the young girl’s testimony. He was convicted of first-degree murder and two counts of aggravated rape a year after his arrest. He’s been on death row ever since.

After her uncle was shipped off to the penitentiary, Natalie Booze had a change of heart. She told Gant’s wife that she wasn’t sure it was Uncle Brian. It happened so fast. She was asleep when the rapist came into her room. It was dark. The account was completely different than what she’d testified to at trial. It didn’t matter, though. Gant’s appellate attorneys asked Natalie to sign an affidavit swearing that she now believed she’d been mistaken when she identified Brian Gant at trial. She signed the affidavit and the attorneys filed it. Both the prosecution and the appellate courts ignored it.

Several years after Gant was convicted, after DNA testing had been developed, his wife paid a private laboratory nearly forty thousand dollars to test three pieces of evidence from the crime scene: a pair of panties his niece was wearing, a nylon stocking his mother-in-law was wearing, and a pubic hair found on the niece’s sheet.