Court refuses Hill plea; execution carried out
UPDATE: Clarence E. Hill was executed Wednesday evening at a state prison in Starke, Fla. He was pronounced dead at 6:12 p.m., according to news reports.
Dividing 5-4, the Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to delay the execution in Florida of Clarence E. Hill, thus clearing the way for the state to carry out the sentence around 6 p.m. this evening. The Court issued no opinion. The brief order noted that Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens would have granted a stay.
The Court acted on Hill’s stay application alone (06-A-301), and thus took no action on his pending cert petition, Hill v. McDonough (06-6545). If the execution goes forward under a death warrant signed by Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, that will moot Hill’s appeal since that seeks an opportunity to challenge the method of lethal injection.
By denying the stay request, the Court leaves Hill without a remedy that the Court last June had ruled he could pursue: a civil rights challenge to the lethal injection protocol used in Florida. At the time the Court issued that ruling, it was aware that he had filed his delay request shortly before an execution was scheduled — the very issue that has now led the Eleventh Circuit Court to refuse to delay the execution further, after concluding that defense lawyers had engaged in delaying tactics.
Without an opinion from the Court, however, it is unclear whether the Court majority actually agreed with the Eleventh Circuit on its rationale. The practical result, though, was that the Eleventh Circuit denial of a stay stands, and the execution may now proceed.
It would have taken the votes of five Justices to grant a stay. An earlier post on HIll’s plea to the Court can be found here, containing links to the application and the petition for review.
This is great news. What is extremely troublesome is that there are four Justices on the Court who think that a guy who waited until a few days before his scheduled execution should be able to invoke intrusive federal remedies into state criminal proceedings.
Let’s also not forget that federal court powers to enjoin state criminal proceedings outside of the habeas corpus context rests on dubious precedent.
Comment by federalist — September 20, 2006 @ 4:20 pm
You were doing so well until the last sentence. Clearly there are at least five Justices who think the Court can enjoin state criminal proceedings outside of the habeas context, since they’ve done it before.
That they didn’t do so here was clearly due to the facts of this case, not any doubts as to whether they could do it at all.
Comment by Marc Shepherd — September 20, 2006 @ 4:46 pm
I don’t think that I implied that only four Justices think, despite the Anti-Injunction Act, that stays are ok outside of the habeas context. I was just pointing out the shaky foundation of Section 1983 stays. And given the fact that Congress passed AEDPA partially in response to the shenanigans occurring in the Robert Harris case, federal courts really ought to be hesitant to issue these stays. Of course, they aren’t.
Funny how judges bend the law to help capital murderers.
Comment by federalist — September 20, 2006 @ 5:22 pm
Yes, let’s execute him via a protocol that can very well be decided in a year or two to be unconstitutional. [No matter, since, hey only by "bending" the law ... in the humble opinion of the person not given the job of determining it.]
And, don’t worry … if you think they “bend” the law here, they surely do in non-capital cases too. Others of course disagree, thinking constitutional securities arise in various cases … other than federalism, that is.
Just as some who support the death penalty bend it for their own causes. To be totally cynical about it.
Comment by Joe — September 20, 2006 @ 7:18 pm
Please keep the families and friends of all involved in your hearts and prayers tonight. Like any execution, this one will only cause darkness and destruction
End murder. End state killing.
Comment by txjeansguy — September 20, 2006 @ 8:09 pm
Joe, read the AIA and tell me if you think that the law is not being bent.
Comment by federalist — September 20, 2006 @ 8:15 pm
Back when John Roberts faced nomination hearings, one of the Senators asked him if he was concerned about the rule of four remaining pointless in death penalty cases. I believe that the Chief-to-be said that that was something he would be concerned about… I think it’s time for the Chief to adopt the noble practice of Justice White, and agree to grant a stay in the absence of a 5th certiorari vote. Short of that, we need congressional action to remove this unjustifiable anomaly.
Comment by Jacob — September 20, 2006 @ 8:40 pm
Eleventh hour claims are different from certiorari petitions seeking review in the normal course: direct appeal, first state collateral, or first habeas. In that circumstance, I agree that if there are four votes to grant certiorari a stay should issue. This situation is different. Once the normal course of review is completed, executions should only be stayed in extraordinary circumstances, and it should take a majority of the Court to decide that a case meets that criterion.
I’m not sure if Lyle intended this, but the fourth paragraph of the post could be read to imply that the Supreme Court resolved the Gomez question in this case and decided the case should proceed to the merit and that therefore the Eleventh Circuit’s decision was contrary to the Supreme Court’s mandate. I read Part III of the June decision as making it very clear that the Gomez question was open for decision on remand.
Comment by Kent Scheidegger — September 21, 2006 @ 1:29 pm
If you mean “A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a state court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.”
Dare I say “no.” Not that that my opinion is the ultimate one. Anyway, the nuances of such rather broad language makes it rather hard to say when its violated, esp. since there surely is some degree of flexibility in actual practice. This is what you would call “bending” most likely.
Likewise, see Felker v. Turpin, the SC has never in any clear way decided its right to determine the constitutionality of a death sentence — even late in the day — was totally removed in cases like this. So “aid in jurisdiction” is rather unclear.
Comment by Joe — September 21, 2006 @ 6:28 pm
Kent Scheidegger- your position on eleventh hour appeals may be a reason not to accept certiorari, but whatever the merits of an ultimate grant, if four justices are considering granting certiorari, then a stay should be issued. It’s no different from other cases where many feel that certiorari shouldn’t be granted, e.g. gerrymandring cases, where the rule of four still prevails. I can’t see any reason for allowing the rule of four not to have any practical effect in cases where the reason for the cert denial is a categorical one.
Comment by Jacob — September 21, 2006 @ 7:47 pm
I agree that 4 to grant cert, 5 to stay the execution is a grisly anomaly that ought not be allowed, but it has been so there it is. The question is, how many votes are needed to decide a case without oral argument? The 4 should be able to make the 5 stop hiding behind procedure and take responsibility for the substance of their action. We all know that 3 of the 5 believe that cruel and unusual punishment involves breaking on the rack or drawing and quartering or excessive punitive damages. So let’s see that pompous hypocrite Kennedy admit that he likes to see perps dance with the reaper as much as the next Ku Kluxer.
Comment by r.friedman — September 21, 2006 @ 10:19 pm
“So let’s see that pompous hypocrite Kennedy admit that he likes to see perps dance with the reaper as much as the next Ku Kluxer.”
Why am I not surprised that you would resort to such disgusting insults, r.friedman?
Comment by CDebateAdmin — September 22, 2006 @ 6:56 am
CDebateAdmin has decided to admonish r.friedman. R.Friedman apparently intended to express his dismay over a constitutional philosophy that is willing to tolerate an undeniable and substantial degree of arbitrariness in our Nation’s death penalty jurisprudence, but which also is quick to strike down a large punitive damages award against a corporation as “excessive” and “arbitrary.” One does not have to be a “screaming liberal”—and I certainly am not—to see the glaring validity of the point that friedman was trying to make. That is, there clearly is an element of hypocrisy in a jurisprudence that exalts “life” and abhors “arbitrary” standards in certain contexts, but not in the capital context. I hope that friedman is not excluded based on the content of his well-taken, but perhaps emotionally-laden, expression.
What was equally, if not far more, “disgusting” was “federalist’s” childish remark that the State of Florida’s murdering of a human being on Wednesday was “great news.” I am astonished that the administrator would ignore such blatant immaturity while jumping at the chance to scold friedman. This action, in my opinion, simply validates the “hypocrisy” to which friedman referred.
For some time I thought that these posts were informative, objective, and intellectually-stimulating; but I am having second thoughts. Based on what I have observed transpire over Hill’s execution between friedman and “federalist,” I would not be surprised if my comments were excluded as “insulting.” If so I will not lose any sleep over my inability to associate with one who does not even possess enough basic decency to keep his mouth shut, for even a day, in the immediate wake of an execution.
Does “federalist” speak for “The Federalist Society”? Surely not.
Comment by jaf — September 22, 2006 @ 4:36 pm
jaf –
Not to worry. This site is wonderfully open to left and right, to ad hominem attacks and ad nauseum academics, to making distinctions and harmonizing. We can argue law, argue facts, or pound the table. This is one of the few venues where blue and red are even willing to yell past each other. That’s why we love H&R (but don’t expect us to love Akin Gump). I think the only things censored out are lawyer jokes — how else could we have gone so long without encountering one?
Comment by r.friedman — September 23, 2006 @ 9:16 pm
Evidently Justice Kennedy’s authorship of the constitutional amendment in Roper v. Simmons is not sufficient to get him into r.’s good graces.
Comment by Kent Scheidegger — September 24, 2006 @ 2:51 pm
jaf, first of all, the State of Florida did not “murder” Clarence Hill, it carried out a lawful execution of a brutal murderer. Surely, we can leave the propagandizing out of this blog, can’t we?
Second, I fail to understand the vitriol in your remarks. Let’s not forget that Clarence Hill is a murderer. Now I can understand opposition to the death penalty, and even some annoyance at the unwashed who believe in it and are pleased to see that society has the moral courage to carry out a lawful punishment (while, of course, wishing that the murder did not happen in the first place), but the vitriol is just not justified. We are talking about murderers. There are far far worse things to get worked up about than the execution of a killer.
And yes, I think it is great news that this execution was carried out. And while you may find this indecent–I find it satisfying that this long-delayed justice was finally carried out, and the world is a better place minus one Clarence Hill. That may offend your tender sensibilities, but I’m sure you enjoy the heady feeling of moral superiority.
From a purely legal standpoint, this execution was great news, as Florida’s interest in the orderly execution of its criminal judgments, after a delay of a few months was vindicated. Let’s not forget that Florida’s interest is of constitutional dimension, and I for one, think it’s great that the dignity of a state was deemed more important than the evaluation of an 11th hour claim.
Comment by federalist — September 25, 2006 @ 2:03 am