ALABAMA EXECUTES MAN AFTER JURY CALLS FOR LIFE | LAT Calling The Execution “Outrageous”

December 9, 2016

Thursday, the state of Alabama executed Ronald Smith after the Supreme Court lifted a second stay on the execution, having twice put it on hold yesterday. Smith had been sentenced to death by a judge despite a jury’s recommendation of life without parole. He was convicted for killing a store clerk in 1995, and the jury in his case rejected the death penalty by a vote of 7 to 5.

“The court denied the stay four to four. It takes five justices to grant a stay, although it takes only four to decide to hear a case. JUSTICES ELENA KAGAN, RUTH BADER GINSBURG, STEPHEN BREYER, and SONIA SOTOMAYOR noted that they would have granted the stay — but no information was provided about whether they would have voted to hear the underlying case itself. Soon thereafter, Smith’s attorneys asked the court to reconsider denying the stay, noting that typically there is a ‘courtesy fifth’ vote provided when it comes to stays of execution when four other justices would hear the defendant’s underlying appeal.” Buzzfeed’s Chris Geidner, Chris McDaniel, and Tasneem Nashrulla report.

Will Baude with The Washington Post has for us some explanations that might explain why the Supreme Court denied the “courtesy” vote in last night’s execution, writing that some of these explanations are “more troubling than others.”

“The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in January that only a jury has the constitutional authority to find a murder so heinous that its perpetrator deserves to be executed. But Alabama continues to use a system in which trial judges can override a jury’s recommended sentence of life in prison without parole and turn it into a death sentence. How is that constitutional?” The Editorial Board of the Los Angeles Times responds to the execution of Ronald Smith, writing it was “outrageous” for the Supreme Court to fail to answer that question and allow Alabama to put him to death. LAT: “As long as the death penalty exists, its application must be subject to the strictest review and respectful of fundamental constitutional rights.”

The National Law Journal’s TONY MAURO spoke with SCOTUSDaily about why he proudly beats the drums for greater transparency at the Supreme Court. “I’m a big advocate for greater transparency, and some people think I’m antagonistic toward the court for that reason. But I feel like the proud father of a shy kid in the school play. In many ways, I want there to be more out in the public about the court because, generally speaking, the more the public knows the better they would feel about the court.”