This lawsuit is really not the problem in Georgia. The U.S. Supreme Court could overturn any stay issued on its basis on the grounds that it doesn’t have a likelihood of success on the merits, as they did on many other recent occasions, including for the 13 Trump federal executions.
The real problem for Georgia is the contract issue. Will they ever meet the conditions it provides for resuming executions? If they don’t, they should search for a newly discovered ground of nullifying the agreement, possibly its unenforceability.
It is never wrong for one to switch positions because the facts have changed, or simply because it is in one interest.
That's what Justice Byron White did in 1991 when in Payne v. Tennessee he voted to allow victim impact statements in capital sentencing, even though he voted against just two years earlier in South Carolina v. Gathers. I vaguely remember a study showing that law students trying a mock case are more likely to convict when all other things being equal, it involves a proofless but emotional victim statement. Imagine the effect it can have on lay jurors deciding sentence.
In any case, Georgia should begin an investigation on the state attorney who accepted this "contract" as possibly working for the other side, which could be a ground for nullity. That would not be surprising, as we can all observe how the culture of lie and deceit dominates among death penalty opponents, who often claim to be neutral on the matter or even for it.
A similar investigation would be appropriate on the Texas court clerks apparently unable to draft or file execution warrants properly. Or on the Idaho officials claiming to be unable to acquire execution drugs despite the secrecy law recently passed by the legislature.
Bookmarks