Interesting, to Say the Least
Today, just before Bobby Glenn Wilcher walked into the execution chamber, the Supreme Court granted a surprise delay of execution order. In other words, everything stopped. Instantly.
Here are, as far as I can tell, the facts. Bobby Glenn Wilcher was convicted of murder over two decades ago- he apparently stabbed both women over twenty times and left them for dead on a dirt road. Even more surprising, he confessed to the crimes at trial.
The Mississippi Supreme Court refused the grant a stay, the Federal District Judge (whom I saw today in person) refused to grant a stay, the Court of Appeals refused to grant a stay, and the governor refused to offer clemency. Last chance- the Supreme Court of the United States.
It is extremely rare for the Supreme Court of the United States to intervene in this type of matter. Curiously enough, since Wilcher admitted to the murders, there is really no evidientary issue to dispute. Thus, their reason for granting the stay could only be for one reason, right?
They're considering ruling that capital punishment is cruel and unusual, and thus unconstitutional. That's the only logical conclusion, right? That makes sense? I'm not crazy, am I? Is there something I'm missing? (Notice the use of questions to show utter confusion on my part.)
Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito and Justice Scalia voted to continue with the execution. Which means six didn't. Hmmm....
I smell the distinct possibility of the court writing an opinion that will leave the makers of Constitutional Law textbooks scrambling to reprint before early August. Just a hunch, however- I could be wrong. In fact, I usually am.
But I just can't see six justices deciding to stay the execution of what is clearly a guilty man for any other reason. Nor can I see them toying with his life, like a bored cat.
(Notice how I avoided permeating this post with my personal opinion- I just really want to get across what a possibly historic moment this might be. In the same way that Roe v. Wade was, regardless of how one felt about abortion personally.)
Here are, as far as I can tell, the facts. Bobby Glenn Wilcher was convicted of murder over two decades ago- he apparently stabbed both women over twenty times and left them for dead on a dirt road. Even more surprising, he confessed to the crimes at trial.
The Mississippi Supreme Court refused the grant a stay, the Federal District Judge (whom I saw today in person) refused to grant a stay, the Court of Appeals refused to grant a stay, and the governor refused to offer clemency. Last chance- the Supreme Court of the United States.
It is extremely rare for the Supreme Court of the United States to intervene in this type of matter. Curiously enough, since Wilcher admitted to the murders, there is really no evidientary issue to dispute. Thus, their reason for granting the stay could only be for one reason, right?
They're considering ruling that capital punishment is cruel and unusual, and thus unconstitutional. That's the only logical conclusion, right? That makes sense? I'm not crazy, am I? Is there something I'm missing? (Notice the use of questions to show utter confusion on my part.)
Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito and Justice Scalia voted to continue with the execution. Which means six didn't. Hmmm....
I smell the distinct possibility of the court writing an opinion that will leave the makers of Constitutional Law textbooks scrambling to reprint before early August. Just a hunch, however- I could be wrong. In fact, I usually am.
But I just can't see six justices deciding to stay the execution of what is clearly a guilty man for any other reason. Nor can I see them toying with his life, like a bored cat.
(Notice how I avoided permeating this post with my personal opinion- I just really want to get across what a possibly historic moment this might be. In the same way that Roe v. Wade was, regardless of how one felt about abortion personally.)
posted by Yorick at 8:36 PM
7 Comments:
Well ... the fact that he has admitted to the killings does not foreclose there being any evidentiary issues. I only know what you've written here, but there are times when people plead guilty even when they are not. Like ... a lot of times. Sometimes it's just the nature of plea bargaining (but not so much with capital cases, I'd assume) - sometimes it's b/c the defendant is not right in the head, or has a deathwish.
Also - the door was just opened to look at certain methods of the death penalty as cruel and unusual - but the chances of the death penalty itself being deemed cruel and unusual are pretty much slim to none.
I also find it curious that Thomas did not vote with Roberts, Alito and Scalia, and that also leaves me thinking that there is more to this case. If it was so very open and shut - Thomas, and likely Kennedy, would have voted with the conservative 3. ESPECIALLY Thomas.
I wish that I agreed that the Supreme Court was about to deem the death penalty unconstitutional, but alas, I do not.
I found out this morning that the court is concerned about his mental state at the time of execution. He was 19 years old when the killings occurred, and he never brought forth a defense of insanity from what I can tell.
Perhaps the court will rule its unconstitutional to hold a man for two decades before killing him?
I have a definite problem with capital punishment in general, but I'm really concerned that a death sentence really means 24+ years in prison, then death. The combination seems incredibly cruel.
I believe the concern about his mental health revolves around whether he is competent to be able to waive the remainder of this appeals, which I beleive he has done. Another, clearer way to say it is that he had a couple of appeals left that he waived and the question is, "Is he competent to waive them". At this point I would point out what I think was a great peice of lawyering by his attorneys. In Jackson, the MS capital for those who don't know, the story for a week has been he waived it, he didn't mean it because he's crazy, he doesn't want to waive it, he does want to waive it, he's crazy now, etc. I think it either worked out really well (less likely) or was well planned and executed (more likely) that the indecision, the back and forth, made the SC think twice. It is easy to dismiss one flip-flop much harder to dismiss back and forth and all around. With the stay they are not saying he is crazy and can't waive or that he is not crazy. They are just saying we are not sure because of the circumstances and so we will put it on hold for at least now.
I understand their reticence, but choosing to kill a man who might be crazy really isn't something that would end up biting them in the judicial butt. It's difficult for his lawyers to argue he's mentally incompetent if he's rotting in the ground.
I agree with Zuska that the fact that Thomas didn't agree with the original three makes this case a bit of a quirk.
I would argue that the man became mentally unstable as a result of being incarcerated for two decades prior to being killed. Death is one thing- thinking about it constantly for over twenty years is quite another.
His behavior certainly is erratic- he apparently cried out of sadness when he learned about the stay. In other words, he wants to die. Which begs the question- can a sane person want to die in that situation. I can't say with 100% accuracy what I would want to do, if I had lived on death row for that long- I might be ready for the needle myself.
Great comments, all- keep 'em coming.
Information from Lexis:
OVERVIEW: Defendant challenged his conviction and death sentence for the murder and robbery of a woman in a case that arose out of the gruesome double murder of two women. Defendant met the women at a bar, persuaded them to give him a ride home, and brutally murdered them on a deserted service road in a national forest. While driving home in a victim's car, defendant was stopped by a police officer. He was covered in blood and claimed he had cut his thumb while skinning a possum. He was arrested the next day and confessed. Defendant argued that the trial court erred in admitting his confession to police as well as a statement he made to a newspaper reporter admitting that he stabbed the victims many times because it "felt good." Among alleged sentencing errors, defendant also challenged the exclusion of certain mitigating evidence. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and death sentence because defendant waived his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when he waived his Fifth Amendment right, and the statements he made to a private citizen did not implicate those rights.The appellate court found no errors in the sentencing phase, and upheld the sentence as proportionate to the crime.
No, the stay IS granted, while the Court decides if they're going to review the case. They may read the writ and decide there are no issues to consider, and then the stay will be lifted.
To try and meld the two above post together, I think the matter is currently in some sort of pre-stay flux, call it a prestay stay. The case should not be stayed until they actually review the case to see if it is stay worthy. Death Penalty cases are slightly different in that you can get a prestay stay because their is no way to go back if you don't pause the punishment. Maybe a more appropriate term for where we are now is a pause. A prestay pause in the proceedings. (Some humor is intended in this post)
Post a Comment
<< Home