On April 21, the Oklahoma Supreme Court indefinitely stayed the executions of Clayton Lockett and Charles Warner so it could resolve the constitutionality of a state law making the sources of its lethal injection drugs a secret. The Supreme Court had originally directed the state Court of Criminal Appeals to stay the executions, but that court declined because it said the secrecy challenge was not part of a criminal appeal. Acting under its authority as the ultimate arbiter of jurisdictional issues, the Supreme Court "reluctantly" assumed control over the entire case and granted the stays, lest the inmates be left "with no access to the courts" as their executions loomed. On April 22, Gov. Mary Fallin rescheduled Lockett's execution for April 29, questioning the authority of the Supreme Court to grant the stays, although it is unlikely the underlying issue will be resolved by that time. Madeline Cohen, an assistant federal public defender involved in the case, said, "We hope this case will lead to full transparency in Oklahoma's lethal injection practices and that no more executions will take place until basic questions about those practices are answered."

The Supreme Court declined a request from the Attorney General to reconsider its decision.

(Z. Branstetter, "Gov. Mary Fallin issues 7-day stay for inmate's execution," Tulsa World, April 23, 2014). See Lethal Injection.

Excerpts from the Supreme Court's opinion:

"This case presents a very narrow question: whether these appellants should have some access to an appellate tribunal for consideration of a stay of execution based upon the consideration of grave first impression constitutional issues regarding the manner in which their lives will be taken."

"The majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals refused to exercise this Court's order and to address the merits of the stay."

"[W]e refuse to violate our oaths of office and to leave the appellants with no access to the courts, their constitutionally guaranteed measure."

(Lockett v. Evans, No. 112,741 (Okla. Sup. Ct. April 21, 2014) (per curiam)).

The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles will soon consider the clemency petition of Robert Holsey describing a near complete failure in the judicial process that sent him to death row in 1997. As Marc Bookman described in the latest edition of Mother Jones, Holsey was assigned a lawyer, Andy Prince, who consumed a quart of vodka every night of the trial. While preparing Holsey's case, he was arrested in an incident after pointing a gun at a black neighbor and using a racial slur. Despite charges of assault, disorderly conduct, and public drunkenness stemming from the racially-charged crime, he was allowed to stay on as defense attorney for a black defendant facing charges of murdering a white police officer. Prince failed to communicate with his co-counsel, Brenda Trammell, who had never tried a capital case, leaving her to perform a complex cross-examination with little time to prepare. She also gave the case's closing argument after almost no notice. Prince failed to present mitigating evidence regarding Holsey's intellectual disabilities and the severe abuse he suffered as a child. A juror from Holsey's trial later said in an affidavit that he would have spared Holsey's life had he heard such evidence. However, state and federal appeals courts have held that, even without the failings of the defense team, the outcome would probably have been the same.

Holsey has had an exemplary prison record of obedience, service to others, and compliance during his many years on death row.

(M. Bookman, "This Man is About to Die Because an Alcoholic Lawyer Botched His Case," Mother Jones, April 22, 2014). See Representation and Intellectual Disability.