|
|
| Justices refuse to allow execution |
| By Associated Press |
| Published: 07/06/2006 |
|
LITTLE ROCK, AR - The U.S. Supreme Court refused Wednesday to intervene in the case of convicted killer Don Davis of Arkansas, whose execution had been put on hold by a lower court judge. State lawyers asked Justice Samuel Alito to void the lower court's stay so Davis' execution could go forward. Alito, who handles emergency matters from Arkansas, referred the request to the full court, which denied the state's request to lift the stay, said court spokesman Ed Turner. The court entered its order at 5:55 p.m. CDT. The state Department of Correction said it could execute Davis on a half-hour's notice and had much of its death-house staff in place in case the justices let it go forward. The executioner was not among those standing by, department spokeswoman Dina Tyler said. Davis was not moved from his death row cell to a holding pen off the execution chamber, Tyler said. "We have not taken last meal requests because there's no need to put the inmate through that," Tyler said at midday Wednesday. U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright in Little Rock last week granted Davis' request for a stay. Davis claims that Arkansas, which uses lethal injection, executes prisoners in a cruel and unusual manner in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Davis joined a lawsuit filed by another death row inmate, Terrick Nooner. In court filings, the state has said that Davis joined the suit late _ two months before his scheduled execution _ and that he was simply trying to avoid the execution. Davis' response, written by attorney Alvin Schay, argued that the delay was of the state's own making because it waited five days last week to appeal the stay before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court set a hearing date for two days after Davis was scheduled to die, so Arkansas went to Alito to seek a quicker decision. Schay's brief, filed Monday with Alito, said, "Executing a prisoner in a manner that causes a substantial and unnecessary risk or inflicting excruciating pain and torture offends this interest. In contrast, temporarily delaying an execution for the period of time necessary to ensure that the proposed procedure is humane and constitutional is a lesser injury." |
|

Comments:
No comments have been posted for this article.
Login to let us know what you think