UPDATE: On April 23, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the inmates fac­ing exe­cu­tion do not have a right to be informed of the source of the drugs that will be used in their exe­cu­tions. The Court lift­ed the stays of exe­cu­tion, which means they could occur on April 29. ‑Earlier: 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)).

Citation Guide