« "Forecasting US Crime Rates and the Impact of Reductions in Imprisonment: 1960-2025" | Main | Rounding up some recent reads on the politics of crime and punishment before second GOP debate »
September 26, 2023
Notable new SCOTUS accounting of stays in capital cases over the last decade
The Supreme Court does not start hear oral arguments to officially start its new Term until next Monday, but it does have its "long conference" scheduled for today and Bloomberg Law has this interesting new piece for capital case watchers. The piece is headlined "Death Row Inmates Find Fewer Paths to Supreme Court Reprieves," it is is worth a full read. Here are excerpts:
Richard Glossip has had his last meal three times. It may be four if the US Supreme Court doesn’t agree at its private conference Tuesday to hear the Oklahoma death row inmate’s latest appeal.
Glossip’s execution dates have been blocked nine times, most recently by the high court in May, since he was convicted in 1998 of hiring a man to kill the owner of the motel he managed. But his case is unusual: only one other inmate has had an execution put on hold since Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in September 2020, giving President Donald Trump his third appointment to cement a 6-3 conservative majority on the court.
In that time, the justices have voted nine times to let a death sentence blocked by a lower court be carried out, according to Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas at Austin School of Law professor, who’s been tracking emergency requests to the Supreme Court since 2019. “There’s a good bet they vacate the death sentence in Glossip, but that’s not going to be a bellwether for anything,” Vladeck said. “You can count on one finger the number of cases in the last few years where the state has joined the prisoner in urging the court to step in.”
Bloomberg Law, in one of the first attempts to identify the outcomes of all emergency requests to stay executions, identified more than 270 in its dockets database since Jan. 1, 2013. The justices have agreed to block an execution 11 times, according to cases identified in Bloomberg Law’s docketing system and in reporting. And of 21 emergency requests to vacate a stay put in place by a lower court that Bloomberg Law identified, 18 were granted. That shows the court is much more likely to let executions proceed than to put them on hold.
Those findings are almost certainly undercounted due to the variable nature of death penalty court filings. The Supreme Court doesn’t require emergency applications to be labeled as a capital case, and it doesn’t have a complete and searchable list of all historical death penalty cases. Groups like the Death Penalty Information Center track executions but they don’t track all appeals.
The only stay of execution granted since Ginsburg’s death, other than Glossip’s, was in 2021, when the court blocked Texas from putting John Henry Ramirez to death while it considered whether he could keep fighting the state’s refusal to let his pastor pray out loud and touch him during his execution. Ramirez ultimately won when the court backed his religious requests in a 8-1 decision. Ramirez was eventually executed in 2022 with his religious adviser in the chamber....
The court’s conservative wing has been skeptical of emergency requests in death row appeals and has accused inmates of trying to delay their execution. When the court ruled in Bucklew v. Precythe in 2019 that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment doesn’t guarantee prisoners a painless death, Justice Neil Gorsuch warned courts to watch out for such attempts. “Last-minute stays should be the extreme exception, not the norm,” he said, adding that the last-minute nature of an application that could have been brought earlier or is an applicant’s attempt at manipulation “may be grounds for denial of a stay.”
Vladeck said that blesses the practice of deciding emergency applications without resolving a prisoner’s claims, something the court’s liberal wing has often pointed to as a reason for the court to put on the brakes....
Zack Smith, a legal fellow and manager of The Heritage Foundation’s Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, pushed back on the notion that the justices are denying cases without reviewing prisoners’ claims. Death row inmates often challenge their convictions multiple ways in both state and federal courts, he said.
“It’s important to understand how much process is involved in any of these death penalty cases,” he said. “Some take multiple trips to the Supreme Court.” At some point, after several layers of collateral review in cases in which the individual has either pleaded guilty or been found guilty by a jury of their peers, Smith said “a judgment has to be final.”
September 26, 2023 at 02:39 PM | Permalink
Comments
https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2023/09/27/mayhem-in-america-new-normal-under-dems-as-young-tech-exec-murdered-by-parolee-mobs-ransack-philly-n2164353
The victim here didn't get any due process. But all good, right Doug, we can't have people in cages.
Posted by: federalist | Sep 27, 2023 9:27:10 AM
As you surely know, federalist, I am not a prison abolitionist (nor a death penalty abolitionist, if we are inclined to focus on the topic of the main post).
Posted by: Doug B | Sep 27, 2023 12:51:07 PM
Every state, at least as far as I am aware, stays executions through the first round of federal habeas. So the stay applications are dealing with "last second" claims. If the default rule is that last second claims are disfavored and that new claims need to be very substantial before a stay will be considered, the expected result will be that most stay requests will be denied (and that, if a lower court grants a stay, there is a good chance that it will get vacated).
It's not difficult to make a last second claim that, on its face, looks to have some validity but which, upon even the briefest review lacks merit. While the denial of a stay may prevent a full review of the claim, in a lot of these cases, the lower court has seen earlier versions of the claim and recognizes that there is not enough new in the renewed claim to create any likelihood that the claim has merit. If all claims must be fully reviewed before execution, there will always be a basis for a stay as there is always the ability to file additional claims. For example, claims about competence to be executed seem to be somewhat common, but, typically, there is a long history of the courts looking at mental health issues in the case and the competency claim lacks any significant evidence of a change in mental health status.
Posted by: tmm | Sep 27, 2023 1:01:13 PM
Yeah, maybe, Doug, but you sure do have a policy of pas d'enemis a gauche. You stare in the face of lenient sentence after lenient sentence--stuff that gets people killed, and you have no criticism for those leftist loons who set them free, and in the case of this Baltimore person, look at Mosby--letting thugs go, but prosecuting some cop for murder when the cop had nothing to do with the events that led to Freddie Gray's death. Marilyn Mosby is an evil person whose policies got a poor woman killed in a most appalling manner. Why don't you start by getting that right?
Posted by: federalist | Sep 27, 2023 2:05:44 PM
Not sure what "leftist loons" you are talking about, federalist. I have been criticized from folks on the left (here and elsewhere) because I am not a DP abolitionist (or a police/prison abolitionist). I have also been criticized by folks on the left (here and elsewhere) by saying it is sound and wise to distinguish non-violent and violent offenders in reform efforts. Can you provide more specifics on the "leftist loons" that you have in mind?
Also, I do not think I have here ever directly defended any sentencing decisions made Marilyn Mosby, nor do I think I have I spoken about her prosecutorial decisions in the Freddie Gray case. I do sometimes discuss the policies and notable statements made by high-profile state prosecutors, but I am far more familiar with federal law and practice and so tend to direct significant commentary only toward the work of federal lawyers/prosecutors.
I have done more than 20,000 posts over the years (and written dozens of published articles), so it is certainly possible I am forgetting past comments on a variety of topics. But I am quite unclear what you claim I have wrong when you say "start by getting that right." (And I wish we all could start by keeping comments on-topic, but it seems your off-topic feelings always want to come out.)
Posted by: Doug B | Sep 27, 2023 2:34:05 PM
pas d'enemis a gauche
Posted by: federalist | Sep 27, 2023 4:57:28 PM
Ah yes, more feelings (now in French), rather than on-topic discussion or factual evidence. FFM.
Posted by: Doug B | Sep 27, 2023 5:05:38 PM
I think we can safely say that Marilyn Mosby is a leftist loon and a crook to boot, and it is fascinating to juxtapose her persecution of Officer Nero and her lenience to this subhuman scum who, if there were any justice in this world, would be sentenced to death and subjected to a botched execution with KCl only.
Posted by: federalist | Sep 28, 2023 9:38:50 AM
Anytime, Doug, you want to tee up the debate about the relative morality of DJT and Joe Biden--bring it on.
https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2023/09/28/veteran-95-evicted-and-replaced-by-illegal-migrants-n581053
Posted by: federalist | Sep 28, 2023 2:26:30 PM
Still more off-topic feelings, federalist, and here about a guy I have never sought to defend morally. But nice that you remain keen to make a case for the morality of an adjudicated fraudster, an adjudicated assaulter, and someone currently under four other criminal indictments. Before long, Bill Otis may start to lump you in with the defense attorneys he thinks so highly of (though Trump is apparently the one federal criminal he would not want to federally prosecute).
Posted by: Doug B | Sep 28, 2023 2:41:25 PM
I don't generally credit sexual assault claims made decades after the fact.
Posted by: federalist | Oct 2, 2023 9:25:25 AM
federalist --
"I think we can safely say that Marilyn Mosby is a leftist loon and a crook to boot..."
DING DING DING
Doug --
"Before long, Bill Otis may start to lump you in with the defense attorneys he thinks so highly of (though Trump is apparently the one federal criminal he would not want to federally prosecute)."
Having some trouble remembering when I said that. Could you supply a quotation? Or even better, get the FedSoc out there to invite me to give the talk I gave recently at Penn and Princeton, and will give next week at Berkeley and thereafter at Stanford, "Why protecting democratic institutions and the rule of law requires that Trump be prosecuted, and why it requires that he not be."
You know me -- balanced as ever.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Oct 3, 2023 10:55:36 AM
I read your substack entries around the time of his indictments to make the case that, on balance, Trump should not be prosecuted. Did I misread what you wrote or have you changed your views?
Posted by: Doug B | Oct 3, 2023 2:34:59 PM