Prisoner John Marion Grant convulsed and vomited when he was shot. The court also cleared the way for another execution next month.
WASHINGTON – On Thursday, the Supreme Court revoked the Federal Court of Appeals’ suspension of execution of two death row inmates in Oklahoma, paving the way for these people to be executed by lethal injection.
One of them, John Marion Grant, was convicted of murdering a prison cafeteria worker in 1998 and executed a few hours after the Supreme Court’s ruling on Thursday.
According to the Associated Press, like other executions in the state, this time—the first in six years—is not going well. Mr. Grant was tied to a gurney, convulsed and vomited while taking the first chemical (sedative). A few minutes later, members of the firing squad wiped the vomit off his face and neck.
The Oklahoma Department of Corrections stated that the executions were carried out in accordance with the agreement, “without any complications.”
Mr. Grant and another prisoner, Julius Jones, argued that the state’s lethal injection program using three chemicals could cause them severe pain.
They also objected to a requirement imposed by the trial judge on religious grounds that they must choose among the proposed alternative enforcement methods, saying that doing so would be tantamount to suicide.
According to court practice, its brief order did not give any reasons. The three more liberal members of the court — Stephen G. Breyer, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Justice Elena Kagan — disagreed and did not give reasons. Judge Neil M. Gorsuch was not involved in this case, presumably because he considered one aspect of it when he was a judge of the Federal Court of Appeals.
Mr. Jones was convicted of killing a man in front of the man’s sister and daughter during a carjacking in 1999 and will be executed on November 18.
The Supreme Court has always been skeptical of the challenge of the lethal injection program and requires prisoners to prove that they will suffer “a huge risk of severe pain.” Prisoners who challenge the agreement must also propose alternatives.
Summarizing earlier decisions in 2019, Judge Gorsuch wrote: “Prisoners must demonstrate a viable and easy-to-implement alternative execution method that will significantly reduce the substantial risk of severe pain, and that the state has no justification for punishment. Refuse to adopt this method under the circumstances.”
Two prisoners proposed four alternatives, but refused to choose among them on religious grounds. This failure led Judge Stephen P. Friot of the Oklahoma District Court to remove them from a lawsuit filed by several prisoners who challenged the agreement.
A three-person panel of judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit approved the suspension of death sentences for Mr. Grant and Mr. Jones, saying that they did not need to “check a box” to choose their method of death.
“We have not found any specific requirements in the relevant case law that the prisoner specifies the method of execution used in his case by’tick a box’, when the prisoner has determined in his complaint that the options provided are exactly the same as those provided. The alternative is to form,” most people wrote in unsigned order.
A sensational semester began. The Supreme Court, now dominated by six Republican-appointed judges, returned to the judges on October 4 and began an important term when it will consider abolishing the constitutional right to abortion and substantially expanding gun rights.
The big abortion case. The court is prepared to challenge Mississippi’s law prohibiting most abortions after 15 weeks, in order to undermine and possibly overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade case that established the constitutional right to abortion. The ruling can effectively terminate legal abortion opportunities for people living in most parts of the South and Midwest.
Major decisions about guns. The court will also consider the constitutionality of a long-standing New York law that strictly limits the carrying of guns outside the home. For more than ten years, the court has not issued a major Second Amendment ruling.
The test of Chief Justice Roberts. This highly tense case file will test the leadership of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who lost his position as the ideological center of the court after the arrival of Justice Amy Connie Barrett last fall.
The public support rate has dropped. Chief Justice Roberts is now leading a court that is becoming more and more partisan. Recent public opinion surveys show that after a series of unusual late-night rulings on political allegations, the court’s public support rate has dropped significantly.
In the objection, Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich wrote that prisoners must do more than just propose “conditional, hypothetical or abstract designations.” He wrote that the prisoner must “designate an alternative method that can be used in his case.”
Oklahoma’s Attorney General John M. O’Connor called the appeals court’s decision a “serious error.” He filed an urgent application requesting the Supreme Court to lift the suspension.
In opposing the request, the prisoner’s lawyer wrote that Judge Freet made an inappropriate distinction between prisoners who were willing to choose a specific alternative execution method and prisoners who were unwilling to choose.
In 2014, Clayton D. Lockett appeared to be groaning and struggling during the 43-minute execution. The doctor concluded that Mr. Lockett was not completely sedated.
In 2015, Charles F. Warner was executed for 18 minutes, in which officials mistakenly used the wrong medicine to stop his heart. Later that year, after a lethal injection drug supplier in Oklahoma sent the wrong drug to prison officials, he challenged the Supreme Court to the Supreme Court, Richard E. Ge, on the constitutionality of the Oklahoma injection death penalty agreement. Richard E. Glossip was granted a suspension of execution.
Next month, the Supreme Court will hear an argument about a Texas prisoner’s request that his pastor be able to contact him on death row and pray loudly with him.
Post time: Oct-31-2021