[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----OHIO, TENN., ARK., MO., CALIF., USA (

[Rick Halperin]

April 23



OHIO:

Judge in Cleveland sets hearing that will determine whether convicted Mr. Cars 
killer gets the death penalty



A judge set a date for the second phase of the trial of a man who faces the 
death penalty after jurors convicted him of killing a couple at a Cleveland car 
lot.

The penalty phase of the trial of Joseph McAlpin is set to begin May 13.

McAlpin was convicted last week of aggravated murder and other charges in the 
execution-style deaths of Michael Kuznik and Trina Tomola.

Those reports require court staff and mental-health doctors to interview 
McAlpin to determine, among other things, if he has any mental-health 
conditions or a troubled past that could be used during the penalty phase to 
convince jurors to spare his life.

McAlpin, who is representing himself during the trial, refused to sit down for 
those interviews before the trial began.

Prosecutors relied on DNA evidence, cellphone records, search history and 
testimony from a man who admitted to helping McAlpin carryout what was supposed 
to be a simple burglary to steal cars and titles to tie McAlpin to the March 
11, 2017 slayings.

(source: cleveland.com)








TENNESSEE----impending execution

Death Row inmate's plea for mercy remains before Gov. Lee



Governor Bill Lee faces a life-or-death decision in the next few weeks as the 
execution of a condemned Tennessee man who asked for his mercy looms.

Don Johnson received the death penalty in 1984 after he was convicted of 
suffocating his wife in Memphis. His execution is currently scheduled for May 
16.

Its the first clemency plea before Gov. Lee since he took office in January.

"We certainly know its a very serious subject that will require a lot of 
information, a lot of input, [and] a lot of counsel," Gov. Lee said last week.

Johnson, along with the now-adult daughter of the woman he killed, asked Gov. 
Lee to stop the execution and allow him to serve a sentence of life in prison. 
The 21-page plea sent to Lee's desk says Johnson's only daughter has forgiven 
him for killing her mother.

In 2006, Johnson spoke of what he called "a personal relationship with Jesus 
Christ" that he developed while on death row.

"I have a peace now because that relationship transcends anything that allows 
me to deal with whatever I have to deal with here," he wrote to the governor.

Lee, a professed Christian, also brings a distinct perspective from his 
predecessors after years serving on the board of a prison ministry called Men 
of Valor. However, he has not announced if he will meet with Don Johnson's 
daughter as she requested.

"We are going to start talking about what that process looks like -- who we 
meet with, who we bring together -- to make this very important decision," Lee 
said last week.

Previous governors have typically made clemency decisions just days for 
scheduled executions.

(source: WKRN news)

*****************

Evidence sought to exonerate man convicted in 1986 slaying



The headline was deceivingly simple: “Fisherman finds body.”

The few paragraphs beneath that summed up the gruesome murder of 25-year-old 
Donna Perry could tell nothing of the decades of grief, hundreds of pages of 
court documents and seemingly endless questions that would follow.

After 32 years behind bars, the man convicted of kidnapping Perry and 
bludgeoning her to death was released on parole on March 22.

While members of Perry’s family regard Jimmy Edward Campbell’s re-entry into 
society with dread, lawyers at the Innocence Project, tasked with exonerating 
the wrongfully convicted with DNA testing, ardently pursue proof of his 
innocence.

“It’s very complicated, because I support what the Innocence Project does, and 
I do know that there are people that are wrongfully convicted all the time,” 
Perry’s daughter Kay Arnold said. “In this particular circumstance, it’s so 
conflicting because we have confessions … I’ve spent my entire life saying, 
‘This is the man that did it.’”

Donna Perry spent most of her life in Brownsville, a small town with a 
population of just under 10,500 in the 1980s.

She was last seen leaving her mother’s home in the Hillville community around 
10:30 p.m. on July 10, 1986. Someone saw her walking near the intersection of 
Hillville Road and Tennessee Route 179 late that night.

An unnamed fisherman found Perry’s body, severely beaten and stabbed at least 
20 times, early the next morning on a gravel road in the Hatchie National 
Wildlife Refuge. An autopsy would later identify blunt trauma to her head and 
neck as the cause of death. She had multiple stab wounds and bruises and 
fractures in her hands. Her pants were pulled down — the autopsy notes the 
presence of semen.

In the coming days, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation would set up a road 
block near where she was found and go door to door in the Hillville community 
looking for answers, to no avail.

But 15 days later, 26-year-old Jimmy Edward Campbell was arrested for driving 
under the influence. On July 30, after multiple days of interrogation, Campbell 
confessed to stabbing Perry and hitting her over the head with a tire iron.

In July 1986, her daughter Kay was about 3 months away from her 2nd birthday.

“This is the kind of case where certainly all of the risk factors for a 
wrongful confession are there,” Innocence Project staff attorney Bryce Benjet 
said.

The Innocence Project searches for cases where DNA testing can prove innocence. 
Benjet picked up Campbell’s case in 2018, about 12 years after Campbell filed 
his first motion to request DNA testing of the evidence in the case (the motion 
was denied in 2007).

“This is kind of a pretty straightforward case in a lot of ways for us,” Benjet 
added.

Innocence Project cases must involve biological evidence to test, but the group 
also looks for “risk factors” that surround false confessions: suspect 
characteristics like mental disabilities, lengthy interrogation and lack of 
other physical evidence.

According to Benjet, Campbell’s case fits the bill.

Campbell was first diagnosed with mild mental retardation in 1972 at the 
Jackson Counseling Center when he was 12. Between 1973 and 1985, he was 
admitted into the Western Mental Health Institute 3 times, at one point staying 
for 54 weeks. He had behavioral problems, struggled in school, had difficulty 
controlling his emotions and experienced hallucinations, according to a 
court-ordered psychological evaluation completed in December 1986.

He had an IQ of 66. Clinical psychologist John E. Sawyer wrote that Campbell is 
“unable to withstand stressful situations.”

“When under periods of stress the patient’s memory is altered significantly 
with his attempts to avoid and escape … leading to his fabricating any story 
that will cause immediate reduction of the stress,” Sawyer’s report reads.

His 4-day interrogation — which produced multiple, sometimes contradictory 
statements — “induced extreme anxiety and apprehension in this patient,” Sawyer 
wrote.

“I could not professionally support that any confession given or signed by this 
patient is valid.”

Campbell’s 1st statement only includes one mention of Perry: He said he last 
saw her briefly at Vernell’s Tavern in Brownsville on July 9, 1986. They didn’t 
speak. He told TBI special agents that Perry had never been in his car.

Campbell’s 2nd statement, written just one hour later, tells a different story.

He said he saw Perry walking along Highway 76 as he drove past the grocery 
store late on July 10. He gave her a ride and they stopped on a gravel road so 
he could go to the bathroom.

“She asked me if I had any money,” the statement reads. “I said no. (Then) she 
brought out a knife, I don’t know where from. Then everything went blank after 
that. The knife was pointed toward my gut. I just went berserk. I don’t 
remember what happened after that. She could have been alive when I left.”

In subsequent statements and additions, Campbell adds that he and Perry had sex 
that night, and he defended himself against her knife with a tire iron he 
pulled from his car. Later statements mention Campbell discovering that he lost 
a belt buckle, then state that it probably came off when Perry hit him with his 
belt after he struck her with the tire iron.

“I also had on the black belt, with the buckle you showed me,” the statement 
reads. ”… That is the buckle you found out there where Donna was found — it’s 
mine.”

A broken knife blade was found at the scene. Campbell said in his third 
statement that he remembered the blade breaking “the last time I stabbed her in 
the hip.” He maintained that he didn’t know what happened to the handle of the 
knife. Later, he said he did not remember having the knife at all.

Some of Campbell’s statements were ruled inadmissible in court, but four 
statements and their many addendums were deemed admissible because they were 
either “spontaneous” and “voluntary” or Campbell had been advised of his 
rights. All of the statements were read aloud to Campbell, who could not read 
or write.

Benjet said this “evolution of statements” is common in confessions that were 
elicited over several hours of interrogation. Interrogators can unintentionally 
provide a suspect with information about the case through the questions they 
pose, Benjet said.

“Especially when you have these lengthy interrogations, there is ample 
opportunity for information to be provided to the suspect through the 
interrogation, and a significant pressure on the suspect to make statements 
that will, in their view, satisfy the interrogators,” he said.

Campbell’s case never went to trial.

The Haywood County grand jury indicted Campbell on 1 charge of 1st degree 
murder on August 11, 1986. In December, the state of Tennessee filed a notice 
of intent to seek the death penalty should Campbell be convicted.

Psychologist Richard Drewery of the Jackson Counseling Center wrote a letter 
declaring Campbell competent to stand trial in January 1987.

“He understands the nature of the legal process and the charges pending against 
him … he recognizes the consequences that can follow from the charges … (and) 
he is capable of assisting his counsel and participating in his own defense,” 
Drewery wrote.

He also opined that Campbell knew right from wrong at the time of the murder, 
ruling out the possibility of using the insanity defense.

Campbell pleaded guilty to reduced charges of 2nd-degree murder and aggravated 
kidnapping on Jan. 12, 1987 — 1 day before his trial was slated to begin — in 
the Haywood County Circuit Court.

He was sentenced to a total of 50 years in state prison with the possibility of 
parole after 15 years. Judge Dick Jerman promised to write a letter 
recommending he be placed in a criminal institution for the mentally ill, and 
gave him 154 days credit for time served.

“We went along with the murder plea because there was too much of a chance that 
he might have received the death penalty,” Campbell’s lawyer James Haywood told 
Jackson Sun reporter Norman Parish in a 1987 article. “After the state released 
results of the blood tests of the blood found on Donna Perry, both the type and 
the sub-types matched his (Campbell’s). When I told him about the blood tests, 
he confessed.”

District Attorney General Clayburn Peeples told Parish that the prosecution 
accepted Campbell’s plea due to “questions about Campbell’s mental capability” 
and “questions about whether the death occurred in self-defense.”

“I feel like justice was done,” Perry’s aunt, Nell Cassatta, told Parish.

Campbell maintained that he could not remember details about the fight 
throughout his plea deal. After he was sentenced, Cassatta told The Jackson Sun 
that Campbell was just telling “his side of the story.”

“Donna will never be able to tell her side of the story,” she said in the 1987 
article.

Campbell filed multiple petitions for post-conviction relief in the following 
months, even filing a motion to withdraw his guilty plea on April 1, 1987.

He claimed his counsel was ineffective, that his mental capacity hindered his 
ability to make decisions and that his confessions were thus illegally 
obtained.

He said he was taking the anti-psychotic medication Thorazine at the time of 
his guilty plea, rendering him unable to make clear decisions. Agitation and 
nervousness are commonly listed side effects for the medication, which has 
since been discontinued, but not due to safety reasons or ineffectiveness, 
according to the FDA. In severe cases, Thorazine can cause confusion.

Campbell filed a motion of discovery to obtain proof from the Haywood County 
Sheriff’s Department that he was taking the medication at the time, but it 
didn’t get far. All of Campbell’s post-conviction relief petitions were 
eventually dismissed.

The courts claimed that Campbell underwent two psychological evaluations, was 
deemed fit for trial, and was properly advised of his rights. Campbell’s lawyer 
even hired a private investigator to assist in Campbell’s defense, the court 
said. When Campbell entered his guilty plea, Jerman asked Campbell to confirm 
his understanding of his decision multiple times.

The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson upheld the trial court’s 
decision on July 9, 1987. The Supreme Court of Tennessee rejected Campbell’s 
application for appeal on July 5, 1988.

On August 25, 2004, Campbell filed a motion to request DNA testing of the 
physical evidence in the case. Judge Clayburn Peeples, who presided over 
Campbell’s motion 20 years earlier, denied this motion in 2007 in a decision 
that The Innocence Project claims is not constitutionally sound.

The Innocence Project got involved in Campbell’s case in 2018, filing a motion 
for post-conviction DNA testing. A judge granted the motion in December, 
setting off the search for 30-year-old evidence.

So far, none of the evidence Campbell requested has been found. Benjet said 
this is not unusual for cases this old; locating archived evidence takes time. 
Documents from the TBI suggest that some of the evidence may have been 
discarded, but there’s no accurate record, he added.

The Innocence Project claims that if DNA testing had existed at the time of the 
Campbell’s guilty plea, Campbell would not have been convicted.

“The requested DNA testing can both exonerate Mr. Campbell and identify Ms. 
Perry’s murderer,” Campbell’s latest motion reads.

Benjet said he’s not aware of any physical evidence, like fingerprints, 
currently tying Campbell to the crime. Because the case never went to trial and 
TBI does not release investigative records unless by court order, whether or 
not this evidence exists cannot currently be confirmed.

The ABO blood typing that connected samples from the scene to Campbell in the 
1980s is not conclusive, either. Blood typing only serves to narrow the pool of 
possible suspects and exclude individuals with certain blood types.

“These are very difficult cases to come in 30 years later and try to figure out 
what happened,” Benjet said. “In large part, that’s the advantage of the DNA 
testing, because biology is what it is. Memories fade, but that’s not going to 
change a DNA result.”

In the meantime, both Perry’s family and Campbell are in a sort of justice 
limbo.

“If we were to find out that he didn’t do it, if there was DNA evidence that 
could exonerate him, then by all means, that’s fabulous,” Perry’s daughter Kay 
Arnold said. “But then where do we go? It’s an emotional roller coaster every 
day trying to figure it out.”

Campbell walked out of jail on March 22. Arnold still believes he’s guilty. She 
said she’s spent a large part of her life trying to keep him in prison.

“I try to look at it from a very logical viewpoint,” Arnold said. “I do know 
that there have been coerced confessions in the past with other people that The 
Innocence Project has worked with, so I try to remain open-minded about that.

“But there have been comments that have been made at parole hearings of things 
that I feel like he would really only know if he was there. I really do feel 
like he’s the one that did it.”

Benjet said the work The Innocence Project does is limited primarily to 
forensic testing. He doesn’t know about what happened in parole proceedings. 
Campbell’s parole doesn’t change The Innocence Project’s goals for his case, he 
added.

“Even though he would be paroled, he’s still living under the cloud of this 
conviction, and we believe, and the judges found, that he has the right to do 
this DNA testing to resolve what is now a decades-long protestation of 
innocence,” Benjet said.

Arnold said she is fearful knowing that someone who is capable of kidnapping 
and murdering another person would be living alongside other members of the 
community. She no longer lives in Tennessee and tries to keep a low profile 
online — Campbell called her out by name at parole hearings, she said, and 
she’s wary.

Benjet said that from what he knows of Campbell, he’s done well in prison, 
working in a transitional work program that allowed him to take select jobs 
outside of the prison gates.

“He seems to be able to work within the structure that they’ve provided him, 
and my understanding is that he’s got reasonable supports in the community,” he 
said. “My hope is that he’ll do pretty well once he gets out.”

The bottom line, Benjet said, is the search for the truth.

“This is a case in which a judge has found that DNA testing has the capacity of 
proving guilt or innocence, so we hope we can find the evidence and really get 
to the bottom of all this.”

(source: WREG news)








ARKANSAS:

Arkansas Trial Set Tuesday Over Lethal Injection Drug



A federal lawsuit by death row inmates has renewed a court fight over whether 
the sedative Arkansas uses for lethal injections causes torturous executions, 2 
years after the state raced to put 8 convicted killers to death in 11 days 
before a previous batch of the drug expired, reports the Associated Press. 
Arkansas has expanded the secrecy surrounding its lethal injection drug 
sources, and the case heading to trial Tuesday could affect its efforts to 
restart executions that have been on hold due to a lack of the drugs. It will 
be the latest in a series of battles over midazolam, a sedative that other 
states have avoided using amid claims it doesn’t render inmates fully 
unconscious during lethal injections.

States that want to avoid unnecessarily inhumane executions will be watching 
closely, said Robert Dunham of the Death Penalty Information Center, which has 
criticized the way states carry out the death penalty. He added that, “states 
that are watching because they want to figure out how to … execute people will 
be looking to see what Arkansas is able to get away with.” Only 4 of the 8 
executions scheduled in Arkansas in 2017 happened, with courts halting the 
others. The state currently doesn’t have any executions scheduled, and 
Arkansas’ supply of the 3 drugs used in its lethal injection process has 
expired. As of now, only 1 death row inmate has exhausted all his appeals. 
Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge says the inmates in the case have a 
very high burden to meet. Last month, in the case of a Missouri death row 
inmate, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch said the Constitution “does not 
guarantee a prisoner a painless death.”

(source: thecrimereport.org)








MISSOURI:

Republican pushes to curb judges’ death penalty power



A Jefferson County senator is taking a run at curbing Missouri judges’ power to 
impose death sentences without a jury’s assent.

A bill from Sen. Paul Wieland, R-Imperial, heard in committee last week would 
mandate a sentence of life without the possibility of parole if a jury can’t 
reach a unanimous verdict on punishment in a capital case.

If passed, it would effectively end the state's unusual practice of allowing 
judges to decide whether to condemn a convicted person in the event of a 
deadlocked jury.

The Show-Me State and Indiana are the only states with such an arrangement, 
according to previous reporting. Most others follow federal procedure where a 
deadlocked jury means an automatic life sentence.

"The death penalty is the ultimate penalty or sanction by the state," Wieland 
said in an interview. "It should be very difficult to do that, and you should 
have 12 people agreeing that is the proper punishment."

What did those in favor of the bill say?

A number of people showed up last Tuesday to offer similar sentiments. More 
than one questioned whether current policy clashes with the Sixth Amendment 
right to a trial by jury.

Greg Mermelstein, deputy director of the Missouri Public Defender System, 
pointed out the current dynamic led to situations where 11 of 12 jurors in a 
capital case could vote for life in prison, and a judge could still impose 
death.

He noted that very scenario played out in 2017 in St. Charles County, when a 
judge sentenced Marvin Rice to death for the murder of his ex-girlfriend.

In another case in Springfield, Craig Wood was convicted of first-degree murder 
for the abduction, rape and killing of 10-year-old Hailey Owens in 2014. After 
the guilty verdict, the jury deadlocked 10-2 for death when deciding 
punishment, and Greene County Judge Thomas Mountjoy took the majority position.

Mermelstein said ending the practice could save money his agency has to spend 
pursuing costly capital case appeals as well.

Rosemary Percival, a public defender who works on death penalty cases, added 
that allowing a jury to have the final say in capital cases would give 
decisions “more legitimacy” because they would come from a cross-section of a 
community carefully vetted for extreme views on the death penalty.

“Jurors bring to the table more diverse perspectives, more backgrounds and more 
experience than does one judge,” she said.

What did those against the bill say?

Not everyone agreed, though.

St. Charles County Prosecuting Attorney Tim Lohmar said concerns about one 
person deciding a convicted person’s fate could easily be turned on their head. 
Lohmar also represents the Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.

“Under this bill, you could have 1 juror make the sole decision whether or not 
someone should or should not receive the death penalty,” he said. “In other 
words, there's an instruction that would have to be given and that would be a 
clear warning shot to anybody who wanted to derail a death penalty trial, any 
juror, they would have the right to do that.”

The Senate committee that heard Wieland's bill did not immediately take a vote 
on it last week; bills are rarely given votes on the same day they are heard.

Rep. Shamed Dogan, R-Ballwin, is carrying an identical bill in the House. It 
passed out of committee earlier this month and now awaits a full House vote.

The legislation is House Bill 811 and Senate Bill 288.

(source: Springfield News-Leader)

**********************

Cruel execution will merely further the cycle of pain



This month, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the death penalty appeal from 
Missouri death row inmate Russell Bucklew (“Justices rule against Missouri 
inmate with rare health issue," April 2).

This was an unusual case in that it was just the method of punishment at issue. 
Bucklew argued that a rare medical condition, cavernous hemangioma, resulted in 
tumors that might burst during the process of administering the lethal drug 
dose, perhaps causing him to choke on blood, causing excruciating pain.

Remember it is unconstitutional to apply cruel and unusual punishment; this 
procedure, knowingly applied, surely qualifies as torture. And yet the U.S. 
Supreme Court, members of which have sworn to uphold the Constitution, want to 
allow it to happen, by a 5 to 4 majority.

It’s a sad commentary on the state of so-called justice. The victims and their 
surviving loved ones suffer awful pain as a result of the murders. Bucklew 
should, of course, pay a price. But killing him cruelly just continues the 
cycle of pain.

Margaret B. Phillips • St. Louis

(source: Letter to the Editor, St. Louis Post-Dispatch)








CALIFORNIA----death row inmate dies

San Quentin Death Row Inmate Found Dead In Cell



A San Quentin State Prison death row inmate was found dead in his cell 
Saturday, a prison spokesman said Monday.

Miguel Angel Magallon, who was convicted of killing Los Angeles County Office 
of Public Safety Capt. Michael Sparkes in 2004, was found unresponsive in his 
cell at 6:17 a.m. Saturday and was pronounced dead at 6:49 a.m., Lt. Sam 
Robinson said.

Magallon, 35, was sentenced to death on Oct. 15, 2009, and had been on death 
row since Oct. 26, 2009. An autopsy will be conducted to determine his cause of 
death.

Since 1978, 79 condemned inmates have died from natural causes, 26 have 
committed suicide, 13 were executed in California and 11 have died of other 
causes. The cause of death of five San Quentin death row inmates is still 
pending.

Last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an executive order effectively ending the 
death penalty in California, at least during his time in office.

(source: Bay City News Service)

************************

Evidence says we must overturn death penalty



There are many reasons to overturn the death penalty. In addition to the cost 
of housing an inmate for life, you have appeals lawyers making hundreds of 
dollars an hour filing endless appeals at taxpayer expense.

In the case of the Golden State Killer, he will die in prison of natural 
causes, or be killed by an inmate seeking notoriety before he is executed, 
regardless who is governor. It is much more tragic to put a young person to 
death and later DNA proves his innocence, which has happened numerous times.

Another good reason is that many countries will not extradite anyone to the US 
because we have the death penalty. That means many convicted and suspected 
criminals are leading a normal life in other countries. The Bible makes it 
pretty clear: “Thou shall not kill.”

Kelly Youngs, Chico

(source: Letter to the Editor, Chico Enterprise-Record)








USA:

Supreme Court sees more serious divide open on death penalty



Sunlight is falling on divisive fights in the Supreme Court over the death 
penalty that are normally kept behind closed doors since the confirmation of 
President Trump's two picks for the court, underscoring the justices' deep 
divisions on the issue.

In one recent example, Chief Justice John Roberts signed on to a majority 
opinion written by 1 of 2 justices appointed to the court by Trump — Neil 
Gorsuch — that concluded that the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and 
unusual punishments by the federal government, does not guarantee a painless 
execution.

In another example, liberal Justice Stephen Breyer excoriated the court over 
the conservative majority’s decision to reject an Alabama man’s appeal of his 
execution without a full, in-person discussion by the nine justices.

The court’s other three liberal justices signed their names to Breyer’s 
dissent, an unusual move that made the disagreement highly public.

In both instances, the debate illustrated how the court has shifted to the 
right with the confirmations of Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, the other justice 
nominated by Trump, and the departure of Anthony Kennedy — formerly the court’s 
swing vote.

And it has inflamed discussions surrounding the death penalty at a time when 
opponents feel they would have momentum to end the practice — but for the 
conservative court.

Some see a message in the decisions by the conservative majority that it 
intends to hold the line on the capital punishment.

“[The court] is sending some very strong messages, that it is opposing these 
broader efforts to involve the court in restricting, if not eliminating the 
death penalty,” said Richard Broughton, an associate professor of law at the 
University of Detroit Mercy who used to advise federal prosecutors on death 
penalty issues,

The Eighth Amendment fight concerned the case of a Missouri man, Russell 
Bucklew, who had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death.

He argued that he would suffer “excruciating pain” if he was put to death 
through lethal injection because of a rare medical condition that would cause 
him to choke on his own blood, and that this was unconstitutional.

Gorsuch, writing for the majority, argued that it was Bucklew’s responsibility 
to suggest an alternative to lethal injection if he truly wanted to avoid the 
pain, and accused the inmate of simply seeking to delay his execution. 
Separately, Justice Clarence Thomas said the punishment was not cruel because 
the state did not intend for it to be cruel to Bucklew.

In the minority dissenting opinion, Breyer accused the majority of issuing a 
ruling that “violates the clear command of the Eighth Amendment.”

He also opposed Gorsuch’s assertion that death row inmates challenging their 
form of execution must offer up an alternative to the court, calling it “an 
insurmountable hurdle.”

In the Alabama case, Breyer called out conservatives on the court for voting to 
authorize an execution without calling the full court to order.

In a scorching dissent issued shortly before 3 a.m. last Friday, Breyer said 
that he had asked the court to take no action until it met as scheduled later 
that day, but was denied the request.

Alabama had already held off on the execution, citing “practical” reasons. And 
the order wasn’t issued until after the midnight deadline, meaning the sentence 
would have been put off regardless.

Opponents of the death penalty argue that Gorsuch’s opinion not only set a 
dangerous precedent by stating that that a prisoner opposing their state’s form 
of execution needed to provide an alternative, but that it was cruel in stating 
the pain caused to the prisoner was irrelevant.

“In a decision that seemed out of touch with basic principles of compassion and 
human decency, the court matter of factly said that execution need not be 
painless and then created and then reiterated an impossible standard for 
prisoners to meet to avoid obviously torturous executions,” said Robert Dunham, 
the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. He called the 
opinion “astonishing for its harshness and cruelty.”

Kent Scheidegger, the legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation 
at the conservative think tank The Federalist Society, acknowledged the tough 
language but said he believed Gorsuch’s opinion was in line with the 
Constitution.

He also said it was good news for supporters of the death penalty.

“That was the strongest opinion on the death penalty as an opinion of the 
court” in recent history, Scheidegger said.

Elisabeth Semel, the director of the Death Penalty Clinic at the University of 
California at Berkeley’s law school, said that new conservative justices like 
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh appear to be trying to make sure fewer cases on the form 
of execution come before the court’s review.

Brandon Garrett, a professor at Duke Law, echoed that point. He said that 
inmates are still going to appeal their cases up to the Supreme Court, forcing 
them to confront these issues. But he said the recent ruling points to an 
attempt to limit the kinds of death penalty cases that can be considered.

“They don’t want to look at these claims,” Garrett said. “They’ve set up a 
standard that’s making it impossible to even consider execution claims.”

More states in recent years have taken steps to eliminate or minimize capital 
punishment. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) earlier this month signed an order 
suspending executions in the state for the duration of his term, impacting 737 
prisoners on death row.

Polling shows mixed views on the death penalty, which opponents have long said 
puts a disproportionate number of minority and poor people to death.

A Gallup poll released last October showed that only 49 % of respondents 
believed that the punishment was applied fairly, a new low in the poll. But 56 
% said they still supported the penalty.

A player to watch on the issue going forward is Roberts.

While he has generally sided with conservatives on the death penalty, he’s also 
an institutionalist constantly monitoring the court’s standing.

“If there comes a point where the court’s procedural handling of these cases 
starts to make the court seem arbitrary or unfair,” Broughton said he might 
break with conservatives.

Roberts has sided with the liberal minority in one death penalty case so far 
this year, signing onto an opinion that the court wasn’t the right body to 
consider whether a man claiming that seizures caused him to forget his crimes 
could still be executed.

The ruling wasn’t about the death penalty itself, however, and experts say it’s 
unlikely that Roberts would change his opinion on the issue.

Ryan Owens, a professor of political science at the University of 
Wisconsin-Madison, said there could be death penalty cases where Roberts might 
“cast a counter-ideology vote.”

“But I don’t think we’re going to see some major leftward drift by the chief in 
these cases, and certainly as we move forward we’re not going to see that,” he 
said.

Scheidegger called the scenario of Roberts ruling against the overall 
constitutionality of the death penalty a “borderline impossibility.” But he 
didn’t rule out the potential that Roberts could side with the liberal minority 
of the court on the more technical aspects of capital punishment cases.

Semel said Breyer’s dissent revealing that the conservatives blocking the full 
court from debating the Alabama execution raises red flags about how seriously 
the justices are taking death penalty cases, and that Roberts could step in to 
try and correct that perception.

“The public’s confidence in the reliability and accuracy and above all fairness 
of decision-making really depends on transparency,” she said. “And this appears 
to be a majority of the court that is not interested in those principles.”

(source: thehill.com)