Prisoners With Executions Dates in South Carolina and Idaho File Requests for Clemency

Attorneys for South Carolina death row pris­on­er Richard Moore (pic­tured) filed a clemen­cy peti­tion with Governor Henry McMaster, ask­ing him to com­mute his sen­tence to life in prison with­out the pos­si­bil­i­ty of parole. Mr. Moore has gar­nered sup­port from a wide range of indi­vid­u­als, includ­ing the for­mer direc­tor of South Carolina Department of Corrections Jon Ozmint. In a let­ter to Gov. McMaster, Mr. Ozmint writes about how Mr. Moore’s ​“sto­ry of redemp­tion” and good behav­ior will allow him to serve as a ​“pos­i­tive influ­ence on hun­dreds of offend­ers,” espe­cial­ly ​“the most recal­ci­trant and hope­less of young offend­ers.” Mr. Ozmint also writes that had Mr. Moore’s crime tak­en place in a dif­fer­ent coun­ty, the crime like­ly would not have been con­sid­ered for the death penal­ty. Mr. Ozmint notes that ​“dozens of mur­der­ers cur­rent­ly serv­ing life sen­tences in SCDC had more seri­ous crim­i­nal his­to­ries and com­mit­ted far more heinous killings.”

In addi­tion to Mr. Ozmint, three for­mer jurors who served on Mr. Moore’s jury now believe that he should be resen­tenced to life with­out parole because of ​“the work he has done to reha­bil­i­tate him­self while incar­cer­at­ed.” Retired South Carolina Circuit Court Judge Gary Clay, who presided over Mr. Moore’s tri­al, also sup­ports his request for clemen­cy. In a let­ter to Gov. McMaster, Judge Clay explains that dur­ing his time as a cir­cuit court judge, he was assigned to pre­side over nine death penal­ty tri­als, includ­ing Mr. Moore’s. Judge Clay makes no excus­es for Mr. Moore’s actions but writes that after study­ing the case of each indi­vid­ual on the state’s death row, he has deter­mined that Mr. Moore’s case is ​“unique, and after years of thought­ful reflec­tion, [he] humbly ask[s]” Gov. McMaster to grant exec­u­tive clemen­cy ​“as an act of grace and mercy.”

Children and fam­i­ly mem­bers of Mr. Moore have also urged Gov. McMaster to spare his life. Lyndall Moore, Mr. Moore’s son, told The Guardian that his father is ​“a human being. He made some mis­takes, but he’s not a men­ace. He’s not a mon­ster. There is no gain in allow­ing the state to take his life, it doesn’t make any­thing better…He’s a changed man. He deserves to keep liv­ing. We want him here.” Mr. Moore’s daugh­ter, Alexandria Moore, said that ​“despite every­thing, he has remained my dad. That has not gone away and it nev­er will.” Ms. Moore spoke of her father’s active role in her life and her daugh­ters’ lives, despite his incar­cer­a­tion. ​“Even with the phys­i­cal dis­tance, he is very much here and part of my girls’ life and my life. My daugh­ter dances for him and shows him her toys.” She added that she ​“will always be a daddy’s girl, and that’s not because of what he’s done, it’s how he’s made me feel…He has left and will con­tin­ue to leave such a pos­i­tive mark all over the world.”

Mr. Moore is sched­uled to be exe­cut­ed on November 1, 2024, despite con­cerns regard­ing the role racial bias played in his tri­al, and the pro­por­tion­al­i­ty of his sen­tenc­ing. Mr. Moore, who is Black, was con­vict­ed and sen­tenced to death in 2001 for his role in a 1999 rob­bery of a con­ve­nience store that end­ed in the death of a white store clerk. While Mr. Moore admit­ted to his involve­ment in the rob­bery, his coun­sel has argued that the shoot­ing was unin­ten­tion­al, and thus, not a cap­i­tal crime. Mr. Moore entered the con­ve­nience store unarmed, but James Mahoney, the store clerk work­ing at the time, had two weapons and threat­ened Mr. Moore. During a strug­gle for the weapon, Mr. Moore was shot by Mr. Mahoney, and he shot Mr. Mahoney, who lat­er died. Defense attor­neys have argued that Mr. Moore killed Mr. Mahoney in self-defense and said that ​“no oth­er South Carolina death penal­ty case has involved an unarmed defen­dant who defend­ed him­self when the vic­tim threat­ened him with a weapon.” In 2021, Mr. Moore’s attor­neys argued before the state Supreme Court that his sen­tence was dis­pro­por­tion­ate to the crime. His attor­neys told the jus­tices that of the 183 indi­vid­u­als sen­tenced to death in South Carolina since 1976, there has been no com­pa­ra­ble case of a fatal rob­bery that began unarmed. The major­i­ty reject­ed his attor­neys’ argu­ments, but Justice Kay Hearn issued a dis­sent in which she said Mr. Moore’s sen­tence was ​“invalid” and ​“dis­pro­por­tion­ate.” Justice Hearn ulti­mate­ly wrote that ​“Richard Moore will be put to death for a sen­tence that I do not believe is legal.”

Prosecutors at Mr. Moore’s tri­al struck all eli­gi­ble Black indi­vid­u­als from the jury that would ulti­mate­ly sen­tence him to death. In Justice Hearn’s dis­sent, she not­ed that “[Mr.] Moore’s case high­lights many of the pit­falls endem­ic to the death penal­ty, begin­ning with the role race plays… [Mr.] Moore’s death sen­tence is a rel­ic of a bygone era, where he was con­vict­ed by a jury com­prised of eleven Caucasians and one Hispanic.” According to Mr. Moore’s attor­neys, records show the Hispanic juror iden­ti­fied as White. Justice Hearn also not­ed ​“alarm­ing” dis­par­i­ties in cap­i­tal cas­es from Spartanburg County, where Mr. Moore was pros­e­cut­ed. Between 1985 and 2001, of the 21 death penal­ty cas­es tried in Spartanburg, all but one case involved white vic­tims. Over the course of eight years, Spartanburg pros­e­cu­tors sought the death penal­ty in 43% of eli­gi­ble cas­es involv­ing white vic­tims, but did not seek it in any cas­es with a Black victim.

*UPDATE 11/​2: Mr. Moore was exe­cut­ed on November 1^st. 

On October 22, 2024, attor­neys for Idaho death row pris­on­er Thomas Creech asked the Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole for a sec­ond clemen­cy hear­ing ahead of his sec­ond exe­cu­tion date, now set for November 13, 2024. The fam­i­ly of one of Mr. Creech’s vic­tims filed an ami­cus brief in sup­port of an emer­gency motion for a stay of exe­cu­tion and sup­ports an addi­tion­al clemen­cy hear­ing. Douglas Walker, the broth­er of Daniel Walker, filed this brief ​“as more facts have come out since [Mr.] Creech’s January 2024 clemen­cy hear­ing.” According to the brief, ​“Douglas Walker now ques­tions whether Ada County may have false­ly por­trayed the thor­ough­ness of the rein­ves­ti­ga­tion into Daniel’s mur­der and the con­clu­sive­ness of the evi­dence point­ing to [Mr.] Creech’s guilt.” The brief also notes that if Mr. Creech is exe­cut­ed on November 13, Mr. Walker’s fam­i­ly will not find the clo­sure they have sought for more than 50 years.

“Independently and extra­or­di­nar­i­ly, the fam­i­ly and friends of Mr. Walker are also request­ing a clemen­cy hear­ing to allow them to resolve lin­ger­ing ques­tions and doubts they have about whether Mr. Creech real­ly is respon­si­ble for Daniel’s mur­der,” wrote an attor­ney for Mr. Creech. Daniel Walker’s broth­er, Doug Walker, has writ­ten a book about his brother’s unsolved mur­der and pre­vi­ous­ly told the Idaho Statesman, that he believes Mr. Creech killed his broth­er. However, Doug Walker says he is inter­est­ed in pur­su­ing jus­tice to deter­mine who was respon­si­ble for his brother’s death. Doug Walker wrote that ​“it’s not a case of ques­tion­ing Thomas Creech’s guilt in Dan’s case… Guilt or inno­cence is deter­mined in a court of law. In a way, Dan has nev­er had his day in court. We are ask­ing for more time to do fur­ther inves­ti­ga­tion in the inter­est of jus­tice and on behalf of my broth­er Dan.” On October 29, 2024, the Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole met to con­sid­er whether to grant Mr. Creech a new clemen­cy hear­ing based on his most recent peti­tion. The com­mis­sion vot­ed 5 – 1, ulti­mate­ly deny­ing a new hear­ing for Mr. Creech.

In his ear­li­er clemen­cy hear­ing, Mr. Walker’s case played a role in assist­ing pros­e­cu­tors in pre­vent­ing a grant of clemen­cy for Mr. Creech. In a court fil­ing, Mr. Creech’s attor­neys argued that claims from the Ada County Prosecutor’s Office link­ing their client to a 50-year-old cold case — the mur­der of Daniel Walker in Southern California — con­sti­tut­ed ​“false evi­dence.” During this hear­ing, the pros­e­cu­tors pro­vid­ed no spe­cif­ic evi­dence of Mr. Creech’s involve­ment in Daniel Walker’s death, and Mr. Creech denied any knowl­edge of the crime. Mr. Walker’s broth­er sub­mit­ted a signed let­ter assert­ing con­cerns that his fam­i­ly was ​“manip­u­lat­ed into par­tic­i­pat­ing” in the clemen­cy hear­ing by pro­vid­ing a victim’s impact statement.

With one mem­ber recus­ing him­self, the parole board vot­ed 3 – 3 on Mr. Creech’s request for clemen­cy, which meant Governor Brad Little could not grant clemen­cy with­out the approval of the clemen­cy board. The day after the parole board­’s denial of clemen­cy, a judge signed an exe­cu­tion war­rant for Mr. Creech, which was to be car­ried out on February 28, 2024. Ultimately, the Idaho Department of Corrections’ exe­cu­tion team was unable to find a vein suit­able for the estab­lish­ment of an IV line for the lethal drug and called off the exe­cu­tion after almost an hour of attempts to set a line.

Mr. Creech, now 74, has been incar­cer­at­ed in Idaho for near­ly 50 years after being con­vict­ed of five mur­ders. He is under a sen­tence of death for the beat­ing death of fel­low pris­on­er David Jensen in May 1981.