In a surprising turn of events, the Supreme Court offered a stay in the case of Earl Barry. Just yesterday, they had denied stay in the case.

Barry was scheduled to be executed around 6:00 local. Apparently, the Court granted stay 15 minutes before he was scheduled to meet his maker.

In the Order, the Court specifically mentioned that this stay will not be extended beyond the time that this case is under review by the Court.

Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.

Per the rules of the Court, four votes are needed to accept review in a case, while five votes are required to grant a stay of execution. By those rules, it is possible for an individual to be granted review but not granted a stay, meaning that he could be executed before his case his heard. The Court’s reaction today could be a move to block that from potentially occurring.


1 Response to “Court Reverses- Stays Mississippi Execution”

  1. 1 New York Times Jumps The Gun On Mississippi Capital Case at DailyWrit

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Categories

Random Posts

  • Solicitor General Record During OT08: I compiled the SG's win-loss record during OT08 in four different scenarios: When it took part in a case as Petitioner, when it took part as...
  • First Opinion Stats: As we wait for the first opinion of the term, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at the first signed opinion released in recen...
  • Four 8-1 Decisions in One Day: The Supreme Court released four opinions today, and each was 8-1. You can find all of the opinions here. CompuCredit v. Greenwood, a case...
  • Another Elena Kagan - Miguel Estrada Connection: Justice Kagan and Miguel Estrada have had a long relationship that has confounded and surprised many of their skeptics. At Kagan's confirmat...
  • A Classic Oral Argument Passage: Today's New York Times article about Paul Clement, "Lawyer Opposing Health Law is Familiar Face to the Justices", reminds me of an interesti...