Jurors Who Sentenced Michael Tisius to Death Express Regret

Four jurors and two alter­nates from the 2010 tri­al of Michael Tisius have said in affi­davits that they would sup­port clemen­cy in his case. Mr. Tisius is sched­uled to be exe­cut­ed in Missouri on June 6, 2023. In his clemen­cy peti­tion, and in inter­views with the New York Times, the jurors said that mit­i­gat­ing evi­dence that was not pre­sent­ed at tri­al would have altered their sen­tenc­ing deci­sions. (The image to the left is art cre­at­ed by Mr. Tisius and includ­ed in his clemency petition.)

Lawyers for Mr. Tisius con­tact­ed jurors and shared details of the abuse and neglect he expe­ri­enced dur­ing child­hood, his men­tal impair­ments, his remorse for the crime, and his record of good behav­ior in prison. ​“I believe that peo­ple can change and should get sec­ond chances,” one juror said. Another respond­ed to the new evi­dence by say­ing, ​“At this time, based on what I have learned since the tri­al, I would not object if Mr. Tisius’ sen­tence were reduced to life with­out parole.” A third juror, Jason Smith, told the New York Times, ​“I feel angry and remorse­ful. I feel that I wronged Michael. … I hat­ed hav­ing a part in some­body dying.” The St. Louis Post-Dispatch said that the six jurors rep­re­sent­ed ​“an unusu­al­ly high rate of changes of heart from a jury.”

A U.S. District Court had issued a stay of exe­cu­tion on May 31 to allow con­sid­er­a­tion of new evi­dence that one juror was inel­i­gi­ble for jury ser­vice because he could not read English. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit lift­ed that stay on June 2, say­ing that the low­er court did not have juris­dic­tion to order the stay. On June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court declined review of a peti­tion from Mr. Tisius’ lawyers that argued the Court should raise the age of eli­gi­bil­i­ty for the death penal­ty. Under the Court’s 2005 rul­ing in Roper v. Simmons, no one can be exe­cut­ed for a crime com­mit­ted before the age of 18. Based on a grow­ing body of sci­en­tif­ic evi­dence on brain devel­op­ment, the peti­tion argued that the age should be raised to 21. Mr. Tisius was 19 at the time of the crime for which he was sen­tenced to death.

Jurors in sev­er­al oth­er cas­es have also expressed regrets about their sen­tenc­ing deci­sions after learn­ing new infor­ma­tion. In 2022, a juror from the tri­al of Oklahoma pris­on­er Richard Fairchild said in an affi­davit that she would not have vot­ed for death if she had been aware of Mr. Fairchild’s severe brain dam­age. Evidence of pos­si­ble inno­cence changed the minds of for­mer jurors in the Missouri case of Walter Barton, who was exe­cut­ed in 2020, and the Alabama case of Toforest Johnson, whose pros­e­cu­tor now sup­ports his claims of innocence.