Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of execution to a Missouri murderer. AP reports:
That evidently didn't happen in the Missouri case. The Supreme Court's order states, "Because petitioner's complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, the State was not required to submit any evidence refuting this allegation. In the currently pending appeal, the Court of Appeals will be required to decide whether petitioner's complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim or whether the case should have been permitted to progress to the summary judgment stage."
Johnson murdered three people in a convenience store robbery in 1994: Mary Bratcher, Fred Jones, and Mabel Scruggs. Being beaten to death with a claw hammer is far worse than anything at issue in the present litigation.
Death row inmate Ernest Lee Johnson, who was convicted of beating three people to death with a claw hammer, was scheduled to die at 6 p.m. Tuesday at the Missouri state prison in Bonne Terre. But the Supreme Court on Tuesday night granted a stay while the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals considers whether a complaint from Johnson was properly dismissed.Two cases is a little early to declare a trend, but this is the second case in a row where the murderer is claiming that an execution protocol would be cruel as applied to him because of some individual medical condition, as opposed to its use generally. In Florida, the state supreme court sent the issue back to the trial court, which took evidence and rejected it. See this post. The U.S. Supreme Court denied a further stay without dissent on this ground, although two justices dissented on other grounds. See this post.
Johnson, 55, claims that the execution drug Missouri uses could cause painful seizures because he still has part of a benign tumor in his brain, and surgery to remove the rest of the tumor in 2008 forced the removal of up to 20 percent of his brain tissue.
That evidently didn't happen in the Missouri case. The Supreme Court's order states, "Because petitioner's complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, the State was not required to submit any evidence refuting this allegation. In the currently pending appeal, the Court of Appeals will be required to decide whether petitioner's complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim or whether the case should have been permitted to progress to the summary judgment stage."
Johnson murdered three people in a convenience store robbery in 1994: Mary Bratcher, Fred Jones, and Mabel Scruggs. Being beaten to death with a claw hammer is far worse than anything at issue in the present litigation.
This is yet another outrageous stay by an out-of-control court, and it shows, yet again, that the Supreme Court is irresponsible when it comes to the death penalty.
As has been noted by the federal courts, once a stay of execution motion is filed, it creates hydraulic pressures on the courts. Thus, given the interests that are at stake, the federal courts must ensure that the capital murderer has been diligent in pursuing his claims. Where that has not happened (other than clear innocence cases), and a stay is granted, the states and victims have been jerked around for the benefit of a capital murderer. And, to be clear, the Supreme Court has unanimously affirmed that states and victims have a strong interest in seeing capital judgments enforced. And, it must be noted that those interests are at their zenith when a capital murderer has had his federal habeas petition resolved and a date has been set.
To this end, the Supreme Court has laid down some clear guidance for when a stay should issue--both generally and where a lethal injection claim is at issue. The Supreme Court issued a stay without such analysis ever having been done. Now some may say that the Supreme Court is not in a position to do that--but how does that justify a stay if the prerequisites haven't been met? The answer is that it flat-out doesn't. And the Supreme Court's cavalier disregard of the interest of the states and the victims' families here is made all the worse because it is issuing a stay because the federal court screwed up the procedure. Query whether a capital murderer is entitled to a stay simply because a federal court goat roped a procedure? Why is that the state's problem? Particularly when the litigation is last-minute?
What the Court is essentially saying is that, no matter how late or bogus the claim, if the federal court botches the procedure, a stay may issue. How this is consonant with our constitutional principles is left unexplained by the Court.
The public and the victims' families deserve more.