X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
With an 11th-hour stay of execution for convicted murderer Kevin Cooper, the stage was set Monday for another showdown between the U.S. Supreme Court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Heeding last-minute pleas from Cooper’s attorneys, an en banc panel reversed a ruling from the previous day and granted a stay less than seven hours before Cooper’s scheduled appointment at 12:01 this morning in San Quentin State Prison’s death chamber. Late in the afternoon, the state Attorney General’s office asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the 9th Circuit — setting up a potential replay of fights between the two courts over the executions of Tommy Thompson and Robert Alton Harris. But at press time the Supreme Court had not intervened. California’s 11-page request called Monday’s stay “considerably more egregious” than the 9h Circuit’s actions in Thompson v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 918. “By interjecting itself into Cooper’s case only hours before his execution, the Ninth Circuit has gravely undermined the interests of justice,” according to the AG’s petition. The office was particularly troubled by the 9th Circuit’s action because Cooper had already been denied relief multiple times in multiple courts. The same day as the 9th Circuit action, the state Supreme Court rejected another petition that had been filed Friday. Barring further developments, the 9th Circuit’s ruling will delay the execution at least 40 days. A death warrant expires after 24 hours, and the state will have to seek a new warrant if Cooper isn’t executed by 12:01 a.m. Wednesday. Cooper was convicted of killing four people — including two children — with a hatchet and knife in 1983 after escaping from a minimum-security facility in San Bernardino County. Cooper’s legal team, which includes high-powered lawyers from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, spent the last few weeks begging several courts to give them some time to investigate what they said was new evidence of misconduct by investigators. They were repeatedly turned down. Monday’s decision was split, with nine judges — Chief Judge Mary Schroeder and judges Alex Kozinski, A. Wallace Tashima, Barry Silverman, Susan Graber, Kim McLane Wardlaw, William Fletcher, Raymond Fisher and Johnnie Rawlinson — arguing that scientific tests should be performed before the execution to see if they support Cooper’s claim that he was framed by police. “This case centers on Cooper’s claim that he is innocent. No person should be executed if there is doubt about his or her guilt and an easily available test will determine guilt or innocence,” the unsigned majority opinion reads. The decision reversed a three-judge panel’s ruling Sunday that Cooper’s claims of evidence-tampering by investigators did not justify holding up the execution. Judge James Browning dissented from that ruling, and said the court should consider the new evidence and perform additional DNA and other tests. “There should be no hurry to execute Cooper. If he is truly guilty, these simple tests will resolve the matter. If he is truly innocent, those same tests will tell us that. When the stakes are so high, when the evidence against Cooper is so weak, and when the newly discovered evidence of the state’s malfeasance and misfeasance is so compelling, there is no reason to hurry and every reason to find out the truth,” Browning wrote. Two judges, Richard Tallman and Jay Bybee, dissented from Monday’s ruling. They argued that Cooper’s claims were procedurally barred.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.