Leonard Taylor Execution

There is a range of problems with the death penalty and problematic executions. A basic concern, which is really a minor subset with respect to actual numbers, is wrongful convictions. The basic idea is that someone who is executed is innocent. 

There are some who are strongly saying Leonard Taylor is one such case. Or, to use a more restrained tone, that there is evidence of innocence that is being ignored. National publications (Newsweek) and local ones provide varying degrees of detail.  The Intercept has one of the best ones, which provides a mixed view of the evidence in my view.  

For instance, Newsweek notes that Taylor has "a criminal record for drug and fraud-related offenses," which is a tad bit vague and almost benign.  Fraud related?  Four people were murdered!  ("Police officers found the bodies of Angela Rowe, her 10-year-old daughter Alexus Conley, 6-year-old daughter AcQreya Conley, and 5-year-old son Tyrese Conley.")

This (more so as well as photos in some cases that make him look rather benign) adds a bit of a different view:

Taylor had a criminal record and a history of violence. He’d done time in California for rape and was accused in 2000 of raping his 16-year-old stepdaughter. He was also a seasoned drug dealer who trafficked cocaine across the country, amassing a string of aliases and fraudulent IDs. Still, the state never offered a cogent motive to explain the vicious and cold-blooded crime.

The last bit starts to introduce a bit of doubt. The two major matters of dispute are the alleged coerced testimony of his brother (admittedly biased) and the debate over the timing of the murders.  An added wrinkle, as flagged by Justice Jackson last fall, is that Missouri has a recent law that allows one to have a hearing to claim wrongful conviction.  The state supreme court here in a one-line order summarily rejected his claim.  

The state in its briefing adds some reasons (including blood evidence not referenced in the articles I saw) for its stance.  But, what stands out for me is the testimony of the brother's former girlfriend that he did tell her his brother murdered the woman.  It is not just an alleged (and maybe they did use illicit coercion) coerced testimony to the police.  

I think Leonard Taylor deserves a full hearing, which is the core of his petition to the Supreme Court.  The state replies he is not innocent and that the state court here was correct to reject his claim.  But, as I understand it, there was no hearing -- which state law requires -- for him to fully air out his claims.  He also argues that he would have more evidence if he had more time and funds for his team to examine the whole matter.  

The bottom line, however, is his innocence claims.  That to me -- and I surely do not have all of the material to fully weigh the evidence of the matter -- is a lot more doubtful. The dispute over the timing of the murders does seem troubling.  Nonetheless, there is more to the convictions [back in 2004, so yes, just leave him in prison] than that.  

And, his background does not lead me to be shocked -- even without specific reasons -- he did it.  The next question then would be who did it?  I do not see reference to theories there -- always good to toss one out there -- specifically, but I gather there is a vague suggestion that given the violent business, he is in (including threats to his life) makes attacks on his family possible.  On the other hand, he does not seem important enough to warrant the killing of a mother and three young children.  

Innocence claims, especially actual innocence on the level of "didn't do it" (the last Missouri case cited involved racial discrimination in the jury deliberations). warrant a high test.  Before executing someone, you should be damn sure (more so than for other crimes), and special procedures are warranted for that.  This includes the recent law by the state to have a chance to challenge alleged wrongful convictions.  

So, I can understand being opposed to this execution, at least at this time. I am less sure about the passion of some that the guy is innocent.  I know the usual tone on each side when executions come down. It goes with the territory.  But, we can be honest about these things.  His case is a lot less blatant than some of these cases, especially taking everything into consideration.  This includes "worse of the worst" tests.

I still oppose his execution, especially before he has a chance to fully air out his claims. I think my opposition to the death penalty is strengthened by being totally aboveboard about the different levels of problems in these cases.  For instance, I am not really convinced there is a constitutional bar to executions on the federal level just because the crime was committed in a state that itself does not have a death penalty.

The Supreme Court denied his request for a stay and/or a cert grant without comment.  I think this is probably appropriate, but they should have said why.  I sent a letter to Sotomayor about them not explaining themselves in these last-minute appeals.  I was a bit wary of doing so before seeing what happened today but did not really think it would be any different this time around.  Anyway, now some of them can go to the SOTU, I guess. 

The latest thing regards him wanting a certain spiritual advisor when he's executed. Local coverage provides the state position: we asked you, you waived it, and now it's too late.  I suppose that makes some degree of sense -- especially if he suddenly picked someone a few days ago. I doubt something cannot be worked out.  They will let him visit with someone before being executed from what I can tell.   

[The local coverage has his name as  Leonard “Raheem” Taylor.]

I see some stuff on Twitter from the usual suspects that make me feel a bit moderate or something for saying that his claims aren't as strong as all that.  But, I hold to my comments that his claims are somewhat exaggerated.  That doesn't mean his execution is correct. The refusal of a reformed-minded prosecutor to accept his claims reaffirms my sentiments, granting he might not be perfect.  

Missouri executed him. 

==

We have continued reporting on the practices of the Supreme Court, including the slipshod practices regarding safeguarding private materials.  

Kate Shaw also has a good op-ed pushing President Biden to talk about the courts in his State of the Union. [Didn't happen.] 

The Supreme Court, especially after Dobbs, is getting some more attention.  Likewise, lower courts, including "judge shopping" on steroids.  And, a lot of talk about ethics.

I am left one more time to think about the basically forgotten Presidential Supreme Court Commission. The commission, including Shaw's podcast, was sneered at as basically a joke and a way to push the question out of the way.  Partially so.  But, maybe if Strict Scrutiny Podcast (who likes and had on members and/or witnesses) spent a bit more time to engage with it, and others too (like Congress, which could have had contemporaneous hearings, or the media), it could have mattered more, including as an education tool?  This includes more attention to the report.  

And, who showed up to the SOTU? Roberts, Kagan, and Breyer were standards here, and Sotomayor stopped going in 2016 (wonder why! after 2020, you had COVID) with Kavanaugh and Barrett going last year too.  The High Federalist trio, including "damn it has politics!" Alito after that Obama kerfuffle has stayed away.  

Remember that?  Good times.  This time: Sotomayor is still away (COVID is still with us) but the same five (Breyer is back as is Kennedy) are there along with Jackson.  Fairly expected with Kennedy a bit of a surprise. Did Breyer say "hey Tony ..."