Lackey v. Texas (Denial of Cert.)
143 S. Ct. 4, 214 L. Ed. 2d 154 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Executing a prisoner after an inordinate and lengthy delay on death row may constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The penological justifications for capital punishment, such as retribution and deterrence, are arguably undermined by such a delay.
Facts:
- In 1978, Clarence Allen Lackey was sentenced to death in Texas.
- Lackey was confined to death row awaiting the execution of his sentence.
- By 1995, Lackey had spent approximately 17 years on death row.
- During this period, Lackey experienced the prolonged uncertainty of his pending execution.
Procedural Posture:
- Clarence Allen Lackey was convicted of a capital crime and sentenced to death in a Texas state trial court in 1978.
- Lackey pursued appeals within the Texas state court system.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest court for criminal cases, ultimately affirmed his sentence.
- Lackey filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, asking it to review the state court's judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does executing a prisoner who has spent approximately 17 years on death row constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment?
Opinions:
Memorandum Respecting Denial of Certiorari - Justice Stevens
The Court did not answer this question. In a memorandum respecting the Court's decision not to hear the case, Justice Stevens argued that while the issue is novel and important, it is appropriate to postpone consideration until it has been addressed more thoroughly by lower state and federal courts. Justice Stevens reasoned that the traditional justifications for the death penalty—retribution and deterrence—are significantly weakened after a prolonged period of incarceration on death row. He argued that the severe punishment already inflicted over 17 years may satisfy the state's interest in retribution, citing the psychological anguish of uncertainty described in In re Medley. Furthermore, he suggested that the additional deterrent effect of an execution after such a long delay, compared to life imprisonment, is minimal. Justice Stevens also noted that high courts in other countries have found similar delays to be cruel and unusual, and that a proper constitutional analysis would need to distinguish between delays caused by the petitioner's legitimate appeals, the petitioner's abuse of the system, and state negligence.
Analysis:
Although the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits, this memorandum from Justice Stevens was highly influential, effectively creating a new avenue for constitutional challenges to the death penalty. It gave a name to the "Lackey claim," signaling to lower courts and capital defense attorneys that prolonged delay on death row is a substantial Eighth Amendment issue. This spurred a wave of litigation in lower courts, forcing them to grapple with the constitutionality of executing inmates who have spent decades awaiting their sentence, and to analyze the specific reasons for the delays in each case.
