Since Marcus's release on Dec. 10, there's been a dizzying array of court activities between the twin brothers' cases. Initially, Marcus was ordered free by Mississippi's Court of Appeals.
The governor's clemency ordered followed, along with a motion from the attorney general to render Marcus's case moot. After the Court of Appeals denied that motion, the attorney general's office filed a petition with the state supreme court, asking it to review the case.
But in earlier filings, Marcus's attorneys pointed out that Marcus's case of being wrongfully sentenced wasn't unique and could easily happen to others: like his twin brother, Maurice.
Marcus's attorney Joe Hemleben says that for Maurice, it wasn't necessarily that the state or the governor was ignoring him — in fact, he said they may have only heard of his case because it was referenced in Marcus's case.
"That's why we brought in Maurice's situation to say, 'hey, this is still happening,'" said Hemleben. "It's not only capable of repetition: it is repeating."
Now, the attorney general has asked the Choctaw County circuit court to correct the clerical error that led to Maurice's unlawful sentence that, like Marcus's, exceeded the maximum limits.
That would correct that injustice, as the Court of Appeals and the governor did for Marcus. But in Marcus's current case, the attorney general is asking the state supreme court for review, arguing that the Court of Appeals' opinion should be vacated and Marcus's case made moot.
Hemleben says it means that between the brothers' cases, the state is arguing seemingly opposite positions.
"Obviously it's a good thing for Maurice, but at the same time, you sort of scratch your head and say, 'well, you're arguing in the Supreme that what happened in the Court of Appeals was improper: but yet you're then at the same time trying to do the same thing as an advocate in a lower court,'" said Hemleben.
In other words, in Marcus's case, vacating the Court of Appeals' opinion would mean that his case couldn't be used as precedent for others in similar situations. The attorney general argues his case should be rendered moot because of the governor's clemency order.
But they're arguing that the court in Maurice's case should do exactly what the appeals court did for Marcus.
"It's very bizarre, the inconsistent positions: I think it causes some credibility issues," said Hemleben. "Certainly this is not the normal course of procedure."
Ultimately, Hemleben thinks the governor's clemency orders were key to correcting injustices in both cases.
In the bigger picture, though, he says the brothers' cases — and the governor needing to step in — show some shortcomings in how Mississippi handles post-conviction relief.
"Clemency is what happens when judicial abdiction leaves no lawful remedy: it requires another branch to step in," Hemleben said. "These two cases certainly speak to a broader issue in our jurisprudence right now."
Krissy Nobile, executive director of Mississippi's Office of Capital Post-Conviction Counsel, says the Taylors' cases demonstrate how easy it is for mistakes to be made in sentencing — but how serious those issues become without clear steps for judicial correction.
"That you could have a person sitting in jail that should have been in 2025, that should've been released from jail under our law in 2020, I do think exposes just how human we are and we're going to make mistakes and the place that you correct those mistakes is in post-conviction," she said. "If you don't have a robust post-condition process to correct those mistake, more and more injustices are not going to be corrected."
She thinks the Court of Appeals made the right move in Marcus's case and is hopeful that the state supreme court will uphold it.
"I hope that opinion stands and that it continues to be fleshed out and fleshed out in a way that ensures folks' rights are protected," Nobile said.
The attorney general's office declined to comment, as both cases are ongoing.
