The United States Supreme Court has denied a stay of execution to Missouri murderer Walter Storey.
The Ethics Bureau at Yale filed an amicus brief claiming that counsel cannot ethically suggest a better method of execution while arguing against the one the state plans to use. I think that is nonsense, and it is likely that five Justices of the Supreme Court think so also. I plan to post a longer explanation later.
"Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan would grant the application for stay of execution."
Update: I may not get to this for a while, so I will upload it and let interested readers read it for themselves. This is wrong in so many ways I hardly know where to start.
The Ethics Bureau at Yale filed an amicus brief claiming that counsel cannot ethically suggest a better method of execution while arguing against the one the state plans to use. I think that is nonsense, and it is likely that five Justices of the Supreme Court think so also. I plan to post a longer explanation later.
"Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan would grant the application for stay of execution."
Update: I may not get to this for a while, so I will upload it and let interested readers read it for themselves. This is wrong in so many ways I hardly know where to start.
They don't seem to have a problem with a statutory default method of execution for the states that give a defendant a choice of methods. I am wondering why.
In that case isn't the failure of the defendant (with his lawyer's advice) to select a method of execution in effect requiring them to pick the method since they know it will go to the default if they don't choose a different one? Given their argument, wouldn't that also frustrate the objectives of representation as set by the client - not to be executed.
Seems to be a distinction without a difference. Perhaps I am missing something.
If so, we both are.
But I doubt it.