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

  • Updates: I've updated a lot of the information on the Term Case Index in preparation for today's cases. I expect the Supreme Court to hand down 1-2 o...
  • Early OT09 Stats: I've finally finished the first edition of my OT09 statistics. First, the links: Term Index and Term Opinion Breakdown. Honestly, the nam...
  • OT 08 Term Statistics: With the release of several opinions this week, the Court has now released 26 opinions for the term. Its time to take a look at some of the ...
  • An Interview with Michael Dreeben: Michael Dreeben, a Deputy Solicitor General, spent the last semester on leave to teach at Duke University Law School. During his time there,...
  • Advocates Arguing from Private Practice (OT 2000-2011): In my last post, I provided a list of the top Supreme Court advocates of the twenty-first century who had never worked in the Office of the ...