[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----ALABAMA

[Rick Halperin]

April 12




ALABAMA:

Over 3 A.M. Dissent, Supreme Court Says Alabama Execution May Proceed


A bitterly divided Supreme Court ruled early Friday morning that the execution 
of an Alabama death row inmate could proceed. The vote was 5 to 4.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer’s anguished dissent, issued around 3 a.m., said the 
majority had denied his request that the execution be delayed so that the 
justices could discuss the matter at their scheduled private conference on 
Friday morning. That was a rare glimpse into deliberations that are ordinarily 
secret.

The dispute among the justices lasted long enough that Alabama officials called 
off the execution of the inmate, Christopher L. Price, which had been scheduled 
for Thursday night. They said a new execution date will be set.

“To proceed in this way calls into question the basic principles of fairness 
that should underlie our criminal justice system,” Justice Breyer wrote. “To 
proceed in this matter in the middle of the night without giving all members of 
the court the opportunity for discussion tomorrow morning is, I believe, 
unfortunate.”

The majority, in a brief unsigned opinion, said Mr. Price had waited too long 
to raise his claim that Alabama’s method of execution, a lethal injection of 
three chemicals, could subject him to excruciating pain. Mr. Price asked to be 
executed using nitrogen gas, a method allowed by Alabama law.

The case is the latest example of an increasingly rancorous divide on the 
Supreme Court over the death penalty, with conservative justices frustrated 
over what they considered excessive delays in carrying out executions. The 
liberal justices, on the other hand, have accused the majority of reckless 
haste that could give rise to pain amounting to torture.

The replacement of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who was a moderating force in 
capital cases, with the more conservative Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh has 
hardened the divide between the two sides. This term’s major cases will be 
decided in the coming months and similar angry splits are likely.

Mr. Price and an accomplice were convicted of using a sword and dagger to kill 
William Lynn, a minister, in his home in Bazemore, Ala., in 1991 while he was 
preparing Christmas presents for his grandchildren. The pastor’s wife, Bessie 
Lynn, was badly wounded in the attack but survived. Mr. Price admitted to 
participating in robbing the couple but claimed that only his accomplice had 
harmed them.

In June, Alabama gave death row inmates 30 days to choose nitrogen hypoxia, 
which deprives the body of oxygen, as the way they would be executed, and Mr. 
Price had failed to do so. The majority said that was the end of the matter.

Lower courts entered stays of execution on Thursday, citing new evidence and 
questions about jurisdiction. Around 9 p.m. on Thursday, Alabama officials 
asked the Supreme Court to lift the stays. It agreed about six hours later.

Earlier this month, in rejecting a challenge from a Missouri inmate about how 
he was to be put to death, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, writing for a five-justice 
majority, said “courts should police carefully against attempts to use such 
challenges as tools to interpose unjustified delay.”

That decision followed a 5-to-4 ruling in February to allow the execution of a 
Muslim inmate in Alabama after his request to have his imam be present was 
denied, with the majority saying he should have asked sooner. In dissent, 
Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the majority was “profoundly wrong.” In March, 
the court stayed the execution of a Buddhist inmate in Texas in similar 
circumstances, over two noted dissents, with the majority apparently satisfied 
that the request had been timely.

In his seven-page dissent on Friday, Justice Breyer reviewed the proceedings in 
Mr. Price’s case and said undue haste had undermined justice. Justices Kagan, 
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined his dissent in the case, Dunn v. 
Price, No. 18A1053.

“Should anyone doubt that death sentences in the United States can be carried 
out in an arbitrary way,” Justice Breyer wrote, “let that person review the 
following circumstances as they have been presented to our court this evening.”

He said his colleagues had turned away his request to discuss the matter in 
person. Late-night rulings on death penalty stay applications are not 
unheard-of, but they are seldom issued in the predawn hours.
Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer

A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters 
across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling 
you what you really need to know.

“I requested that the court take no action until tomorrow, when the matter 
could be discussed at conference,” he wrote, referring to a private meeting 
that is regularly scheduled for most Friday mornings during the court’s term. 
“I recognized that my request would delay resolution of the application and 
that the state would have to obtain a new execution warrant, thus delaying the 
execution by 30 days.

“But in my judgment, that delay was warranted, at least on the facts as we have 
them now,” Justice Breyer wrote.

Alabama officials expressed outrage over the delay after the death warrant 
expired.

“Tonight, in the middle of National Crime Victims’ Rights Week, the family of 
Pastor Bill Lynn was deprived of justice,” said Attorney General Steven T. 
Marshall. “They were, in effect, re-victimized by a killer trying to evade his 
just punishment.”

Mr. Marshall complained that Mr. Price had long “dodged his death sentence for 
the better part of three decades by employing much the same strategy he has 
pursued tonight — desperately clinging to legal maneuverings to avoid facing 
the consequences of his heinous crime.” He vowed that Mr. Lynn’s “day of 
justice will come.”

In his dissent, Justice Breyer wrote that a brief delay to allow the Supreme 
Court to discuss the matter was warranted.

There were substantial questions, he wrote, about whether Mr. Price had acted 
too slowly in choosing nitrogen gas.

“What is at stake in this case,” Justice Breyer wrote, “is the right of a 
condemned inmate not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in 
violation of the Eighth Amendment.”

(source: New York Times)