No. 18-6530
Edmund Zagorski v. Bill Haslam, Governor of Tennessee, et al.
Tags: constitutional-protections constitutional-rights cruel-and-unusual-punishment death-penalty death-penalty-challenges due-process involuntary-waiver method-of-execution procedural-technicalities state-secrecy stewart-v-lagrand
Latest Conference:
N/A
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Did Glossip v. Gross, 135 S.Ct. 2726 (2015), modify centuries-old jurisprudence prohibiting involuntary waiver of constitutional protections in the context of method of execution claims?
2. Does Stewart v. LaGrand, 526 U.S. 115 (1999), prevent a death-sentenced inmate from challenging a barbaric method of execution he was coerced into choosing by threat of an even more-barbarous method because he was prevented from meeting the of Glossip by state secrecy laws and procedural technicalities?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did Glossip v. Gross modify centuries-old jurisprudence prohibiting involuntary waiver of constitutional protections in the context of method of execution claims?
Docket Entries
2018-11-01
Application (18A470) referred to the Court.
2018-11-01
Application (18A470) denied by the Court.
2018-11-01
Petition DENIED. Justice Sotomayor dissents. (Detached opinion)
2018-11-01
2018-11-01
Application (18A470) for a stay of execution of sentence of death, submitted to Justice Kagan.
2018-11-01
Brief of respondent Bill Haslam, et al. in opposition filed.
2018-11-01
Reply of petitioner Edmund Zagorski filed.
Attorneys
Bill Haslam, et al.
Jennifer L. Smith — Respondent
Edmund Zagorski