Execution Watch: Leroy Hall

Summary of Offense:

At around midnight on April 16, 1991, the defendant threw gasoline on the victim, Traci Crozier, his ex-girlfriend, as she was lying in the front seat of her car. The victim received third-degree burns to more than ninety percent of her body and died several hours later in the hospital.

Hall was sentenced to death on March 11, 1992.

As an opponent of the death penalty, I'm not going to be johnny one-note and merely talk about possible innocence or racism or the like. It is readily admitted that some of these people committed really horrible crimes though that's a mixed bag (e.g., someone who murders someone during a robbery should get a long prison sentence, but the death penalty should have a higher test than that).  This is a horrible crime -- that extra bit of torture is the sort of thing that will get you a death sentence.  It won't surprise that she was an estranged girlfriend.  The link provides a picture of the victim.

But, the death penalty is still bad policy and overall applied in an unconstitutional way.  My year long deep dive (again, only so much; don't claim some deep knowledge of these cases though more than most who just glance at the facts) have brought up various issues. One (specifically addressed by Justice Breyer these days) pops up here: a long time on death row is problematic since the legitimate penal purpose is greatly altered by that point and there is a basic cruelty (often involving solitary confinement) involved.  This latter concern tempers the Pollyanna sentiments in certain Supreme Court opinions about the positive path of death penalty development.  Why execute him after nearly 30 years?

It is sometimes hard to have sympathy for certain people -- we see this with online trolls -- but note that the alternative here isn't releasing the guy (though thirty years is a pretty f-ing long time), it is not executing him to continue a greatly flawed system. For instance, looking up articles on the guy, one flagged he is now legally blind.  He is only in his early 50s, but people do die before then (a few years back, I found out a former family friend died in her 40s; long time back, a friendly co-worker died in his 30s) and life in prison isn't great for one's health.  There is a certain "really?" feel to executing a blind man though if you say that people will remind you what he did ... back when dial-up Internet wasn't even quite a thing. 

There is also likely to be some sort of procedural due process concerns that pop up on various grounds.  For instance, this opinion flags concerns over expert testimony.  The usual approach is a kitchen sink one though eventually something specific stays around that seems to be particularly strong.  One problem flagged is that there is a tainted juror:

Attorneys for Lee Hall say they have found a woman — simply known as “Juror A” — who now admits she failed to disclose during Hall’s jury selection process nearly 26 years ago that she had been repeatedly raped and abused by her former husband.

Why did it take so long?  How strong is this argument? As these go, the facts tend to be mixed, some arguments stronger than others. This factors in when balancing equities, including laws that limit time to make certain types of challenges. The woman's feelings on her experience changed over time and early in the appeals process the resources to even find her was limited.  The article provides some remarks from family members, including mention that they think an execution might serve some sort of closure.  Feelings tend to be mixed there.  And, I have repeatedly found cases where families do not want an execution.

Leroy Hall (a few articles note he dropped the "Jr.") has chosen to be electrocuted, which is sorta still a thing in Tennessee.* Hall was part of litigation challenging the state's lethal injection protocol, which Sotomayor flagged (opposes the need to find a safer alternative before you can even challenge a method test and the secrecy in place that makes it hard to obtain information there) in the past.  I had an extended discussion on the most recent case there (Bucklew), made harder since Gorsuch's opinion was trollish.  But, if you go to page thirteen, this does pop up:

It teaches that where (as here) the question in dispute is whether the State’s chosen method of execution cruelly superadds pain to the death sentence, a prisoner must show a feasible and readily implemented alternative method of execution that would significantly reduce  a  substantial risk of severe pain and that the State has refused to adopt without a legitimate penological reason.

Earlier, Justice Alito in passing denied that the procedure at issue was like "burning at the stake" so the full test was not pressed.  And, even in the last case, the opinion refuted there was really a problem.  But, the rule is horrible: if an execution method really is cruel -- and cruel means of punishment is surely a core purpose of the clause -- it is cruel even if the state cannot "readily implement" an execution otherwise.  The syllogism that the death penalty is constitutional so the state has to have a means to execute falls apart with scrutiny.  Imprisonment is constitutional. If for some reason the only prison was freezing cold and filled with vermin, it would not be constitutional to put the person there.

Meanwhile, while Barr serves as Trump's consigliere and rants about conservative talking points such as at the Federalist Society, he also brought back the federal death penalty.  A few executions were scheduled this month with one held up because of claims racism tainted the proceedings. The others were held up because a federal district judge found a federal law required the people to be executed the same way as the state law in question (if the state had no death penalty, as occurs once here, the court is to designate a state).  The opinion appears well written. The government wants the Supreme Court to lift the order, skipping the court of appeals.  The rush here is unclear -- want to execute for holiday season? It seems something that will be handled somehow though perhaps one hopes for the clock to run out.

[A former AG of Ohio -- executions are on hold there because of concerns with the means of execution -- had a powerful op-ed against restarting the federal execution process including flagging problems with the specific people chosen to be executed.  I'd add now as well that on 12/6, the Supreme Court -- while saying they trust it will handle with due speed -- rejected the rush request.  Alito (with Gorsuch/Kavanaugh) agreed but underlined they think the government clearly should win. So basically said "don't try so hard, not really necessary."  So, that is on hold for now.]

That last part might be the real concern though another thing to ask is why did the feds not just follow the procedures for each state?  I guess a deep dive there might find it would be complicated to do that since you have special rules for each case, instead of one federal rule.  And, one rule very well might be good policy.  But, that isn't the law in place.  There is also a claim made that maybe the federal rule will be better than some specific state law -- for instance, see above with the concern over certain lethal injection protocols.  That too might in theory be true though the feds making the argument leads one to be cynical.

Without comment, including from Sotomayor (TN is in her circuit), his final appeal (related to the bias issue) was denied.  He was executed. With the fed cases held up, there is one more execution scheduled this year.

---

* It seems a tad striking that we still have electrocution -- struck down as unconstitutional by Nebraska in 2008 but never fully addressed by the Supreme Court since the 1890s --  but it is allowed for crimes committed there before 1999.  For a variety of reasons -- rarity, threat of pain, brutality generally -- a good case can be made it should not be allowed.

We will have to wait for that nitrogen gas opportunity but "old Sparky" is apparently still a thing.