Michael Smith Execution (Oklahoma)

The Oklahoma Pardon and Parole voted 4-1 to deny recommending clemency for Michael Dewayne Smith, 41, who has been sentenced to die for the slayings of Janet Moore, 41, and Sharath Pulluru, 22, in separate shootings in February 2002. Smith has exhausted his appeals and is scheduled to be executed on April 4.

Janet Moore is the mother of Sharath Pulluru. Michael Dewayne Smith (though he asserts his innocence, noting he was high when he was questioned and allegedly confessed) murdered Moore by mistake, looking for her son. He also wrongly thought Pulluru was a witness to another crime and talked about it to the media. There is also talk of him "disrespecting" Smith and/or his gang. 

His lawyers are challenging one of the witnesses and citing mitigation:

Smith’s attorney, Mark Henricksen, argued that Smith is intellectually disabled, a condition worsened by years of heavy drug use, and that his life should be spared and he should be allowed to spend the rest of his life in prison. Henricksen said Smith was in a PCP-induced haze when he confessed to police and that key elements of his confession aren’t supported by facts.

His age (19) also was cited. We can add the fact he has already been in prison for over twenty years. OTOH, someone in his early 40s is still relatively young, and prosecutors cited danger inside:

But prosecutors disputed Henricksen’s claims of intellectual disability and say Smith remains a danger to society, noting that he has been caught with weapons on death row as recently as 2019 and that he remains involved with gang members who continue to communicate with him.

True that is five years ago. OTOH, he wasn't just sentenced for the two crimes: 

Police were already looking for Smith at the time of the killings for questioning in another murder. Smith was later convicted of second-degree murder in the death of Otis Payne in 2004 and received a separate life sentence. 

The Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board voted 4-1 against recommending clemency for Smith. This is not a "worse of the worst" case against execution. Murdering two people, both wrongly as it turned out, as witnesses to a crime on top of other crimes is aggravating. The concern about still being dangerous in prison is also not the case (not granting the conclusion) in many cases. 

Nonetheless, bad systems will have a degree of bad results. Concern about still being a threat in prison is noted, but especially with the vague reference that is five years old, this alone is not a compelling reason. This is someone who had a bad upbringing and like many joined a gang to find a sorta family. He rightly was kept away from society for his crimes.

The execution of this bad actor as compared to any number of people who committed similar crimes remains of questionable public policy. The dangers of executing people continue, even when a fraction of "less close than usual" cases are involved. 

The same applies to the final appeal to SCOTUS. The appeal was a Hail Mary that from the summary was a fact-based dispute without much of a legal dispute that even a more sympathetic Supreme Court would take up. 

I think each final rejection deserves at least a brief discussion of why. Some cases are stronger than others. Each involves the Supreme Court's final signing off of the government-sponsored taking of human life. It deserves an explanation. I am not saying that each one deserves to be taken. Some cases do not deserve a final Supreme Court appeal, "just against the death penalty" is insufficient.  But, that isn't my point there.  

The usual bare bones no discussion order is wrong. It was dropped in the morning with Gorsuch (he didn't say why but likely was involved in the case as a circuit judge) recused. I appreciate getting this done early and not waiting until almost literally the last minute (or hours) in the evening. 

He was executed. Another execution is scheduled in Missouri next week.  

Meanwhile, Oklahoma -- after multiple problems led to a moratorium -- had been trying to play "catch-up" with executions. The Republican Attorney General and the Director of Corrections ultimately were concerned about the pace and its effects on staff members. 

“I do not want, as chief law officer, to oversee a failed execution. I am present with every execution. I look the defendant in the eye as he dies. I look the men and women that administer those lethal injections in the eye after they’ve administered it, and I have sympathy for the strain on them.” 

They asked for a judicial order to allow for sixty days of spacing. An attempt to stretch this to ninety was looked upon dubiously.  "Man up," was the message.  

Let's just end executions. Prison officials still will have problems since it is hard to oversee holding people in small cages. But, it won't be in the promotion of state-sponsored killings.