On January 11, Desert Storm vet­er­an Cleve Foster of Texas received a stay of exe­cu­tion just moments before his lethal injec­tion. Foster had already fin­ished his last meal when the United States Supreme Court halt­ed the exe­cu­tion. Foster was sen­tenced to death for a 2002 shoot­ing, but has always main­tained that his friend was respon­si­ble for the mur­der. The friend also received the death penal­ty for the crime but died of can­cer before he was exe­cut­ed. In a recent appeal, Foster’s defense claimed his con­vic­tion should be over­turned because his tri­al lawyers failed to hire a blood-spat­ter expert whose tes­ti­mo­ny could have result­ed in a dif­fer­ent ver­dict. Supporters of Foster say that the co-defen­dant had signed a con­fes­sion in which he admit­ted to shoot­ing and killing the vic­tim. Foster’s cur­rent attor­neys also claim that he received inad­e­quate defense on appeal and hence has nev­er had an ade­quate review of his inno­cence claim. The U.S. Supreme Court did not spec­i­fy a rea­son for grant­i­ng the stay. UPDATE: The Supreme Court declined to review Foster’s case.

(E. Lane, ​“Execution of Texas death row inmate stopped after last meal,” The Examiner, January 12, 2011). See Innocence and Representation.

Citation Guide