Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Order List

United States Supreme Court


February 24, 1999

GREEN, NORMAN EVANS V. JOHNSON, DIR. TX DOCJ

(ORDER LIST: 525 U.S.)

CERTIORARI DENIED

(A-700)

The application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Scalia and by him referred to the Court is denied. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg would grant the application for stay of execution.

(ORDER LIST: 525 U.S.)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1999 HABEAS CORPUS DENIED

98-8222

IN RE NORMAN EVANS GREEN

(A-705)

The application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Scalia and by him referred to the Court is denied. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.

(ORDER LIST: 525 U.S.)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1999

ORDER IN PENDING CASE

(A-706)STEWART, DIR. AZ DOC, ET AL., V. LAGRAND, KARL HINZE

The motion by Karl LaGrand to clarify the order entered by the Court in the above captioned case on February 24, 1999 is denied. Justice Stevens Dissenting: Because I am not at all sure that the Court has authority to vacate an injunction without first granting certiorari, and because I also think the Court's order is not entirely clear, I would grant the motion for clarification. Justice Ginsburg took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.Stevens, J., Dissenting

STEWART v. LAGRAND ____ U. S. ____ (1999)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. A-706 TERRY STEWART, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al. v. KARL HINZE LAGRAND

on application to vacate stay of execution

[February 24, 1999]

The application to vacate stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice O'Connor and by her referred to the Court is granted.Justice Stevens, Dissenting. The State has filed a petition for certiorari in No. 98-1368 raising the following four questions:

1.Has the Ninth Circuit opinion holding that execution by lethal gas constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, created a conflict among the circuits requiring this Court to resolve the constitutionality of Arizona's method of execution?

2. Does an inmate who chooses to be executed by lethal gas, rather than the available constitutional method of lethal injection, waive his right to complain that lethal gas is unconstitutional?

3.Whether an inmate who failed to timely raise an argument about the unconstitutionality of legal gas in state court has shown cause by claiming that it would have been futile for his appellate lawyer to raise the claim even though lethal gas was the only method of execution at the time the inmate was sentenced? Whether the inmate can show cause for his procedural default by claiming that factual information about lethal gas was unavailable even though numerous executions by lethal gas had occurred over the previous five decades?

4.Whether application of a ruling declaring lethal gas an unconstitutional method of execution is a new rule being applied on collateral review in derogation of Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989)?

In my opinion, all four of these questions presented in the State's petition for certiorari merit this Court's attention. I would, therefore, grant that petition and allow the stay to remain in place. Otherwise, the case may become moot.

19990224


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.