The family of a 1989 murder victim speaks out moments after her murderer was executed. The state of Florida put 58-year-old Mark Allen Geralds to death by lethal injection Tuesday night. Amy and T.J. discuss Geralds’ bizarre last words plus preview Thursday’s scheduled execution of a Tennessee man whose attorneys say will be the first man executed for a crime he pleaded guilty to committing. And finally, the Supreme Court is taking up a case out of Alabama, where that state is trying to execute a man two lower courts have ruled is intellectually disabled.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hey there, folks, it is Wednesday, December tenth. Do you
have any last words? A Florida death row inmate which
asked that last night right before he was given a
lethal injection, and this morning people are still confused about
his last words. And with that, welcome to this episode
(00:24):
of Amy and TJ and Robes. We have been covering
a lot of executions. We hear about last words, last meals. Look,
we have that to talk about from last night. We
have another execution coming up tomorrow night in the Supreme
Court today on There's Wednesday is taking up a very
major execution related case. It's been an execution year, really,
it feels like in this country.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
Yes, and this is an execution podcast because there are
three major headlines that you just described to talk about
right now. We can begin with last night in Florida,
fifty eight year old Mark Allan Gerald's pronounced dead at
six fifteen pm lethal injection. And there was a description
(01:04):
of how that lethal injection went by the witnesses who
were there in the room. They said that he took
about a dozen deep breaths. They say his body quivered
and twitched, but within three to four minutes he was
still and pronounced dead a few moments later, But it
was before that all took place his last words that
(01:24):
got a lot of attention from folks. Of course, he
was asked it he addressed someone by name, but the
name was not discernible, it was inaudible. They didn't know
who he said. But after he said this person's name,
he went on to say, I'm sorry that I missed you.
I loved you every day. That left a lot of
(01:46):
head scratching.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
Hey, here we out.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
We don't know who he was talking to and what
he was talking about. Really, it's the last words he'll
ever have. Maybe somebody will come out and explain and
who he was talking to. Maybe that person was in
the room and they'll tell us.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
But so far no, And it was interesting as far
as who came up and who showed up. Look, this
is a crime that happened in nineteen eighty nine and
the victim in this case, her name was Tresa Pettibone.
But the state said that eight people on behalf of
Tresa were there for that execution to witness that execution.
(02:20):
That is fairly unheard of at this point, but it
just went to show the gravity of the situation. In fact,
her family gave a statement following the death of her murderer.
And a lot of times we've been reporting on families
not wanting executions to go forward, wanting there to be
(02:41):
not the eye for an eye, a tooth for a
tooth sentiment. But that was not the case from the
Pettybone family.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
Oh and you have to appreciate now what your heart
goes out to them for. Yes, they've lost someone, but
why do you have to sit and wait thirty something
years for somebody to be executed? Why are you having
to deal with another appeal and having to be contacted
by the state once again to say that this.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
Is why, why why why?
Speaker 1 (03:01):
That's Look, I'm not plotting, and we've come around and
talked about here openly about issues with the death penalty.
But you have Santa, since one argument he makes is
that we got I'm signing these because we've had these
families waiting for too long. That's an argument, at least
at least when you talk to this family.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
Okay, I get that.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
Yeah, think about all the executions we have covered this year,
but particularly in the last few months. Can you think
of any of them that have been within even a
decade or two decades. We're talking three decades almost for
all of the executions we've been describing, they were all
in the nineteen eighties, nineteen nineties.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
Yeah, so he's moving that and process along. And look, Florida,
we talked about there on a record pace. This was
their eighteenth of the year, and they've the record before.
This was eight the most they had ever executed in
one year with eight people, and now they're up to
eighteen in will or at least scheduled to get to
nineteen by the time the month is out. And again
Desanta's we talked about as well, there are more drugs
(04:05):
now available and there was a little delay because some
of these things are seen as cruel and unusual, and
now states have more access to the drugs they need
to execute people.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
Fine, but Florida ain't messing around here.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
They are not messing around and so yes, and I
think the Pettibone family was certainly appreciative of that because
in their statement here is what they wrote. This was
right after the execution took place. They said, tomorrow, when
we wake up, it will be the first time in
nearly thirty seven years that we don't have to worry
about another appeal being filed or another law changing that
(04:38):
could potentially thwart the justice we have been fighting so
hard for so long.
Speaker 1 (04:45):
And my argument, if there should be a law if
the family of the victim doesn't want the person executed,
we should follow their wishes.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
Right.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
They shouldn't decide if the person dies, but they should
decide if the person doesn't die. This was a family
that was clearly supportive of this going through.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
They were supportive, and honestly so was Gerald's because his
death warrant was actually signed last month by DeSantis and
he told the judge, I don't want to pursue any
further appeals, and the judge said, no problem, signed off
on Gerald's decision. I think he's the second inmate we've
heard that. Actually, it's remarkable. We've talked about this as well.
(05:24):
Despite the conditions that it might be to be in
death row or to be in a maximum security prison
for decades, it seems as though, regardless of the conditions,
these inmates want to live. For the most part, it's
rare that you see an inmate not fight for a
stay of execution.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
Yeah, he's just the second out of the eighteen one
of the guys didn't as well. But yeah, no matter what,
to the end, we've seen that desperately fighting to stay
a lot.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
Yeah, and that would be the case with tomorrow's execution,
Thursday's execution out of Tennessee. Even though we've already heard
from the governor on this, he said, yeah, I'm not
going to get involved in this execution. This is Harold
Wayne Nichols, sixty four years old, but he is fighting
his execution, even though the governor made that statement and
(06:10):
made it pretty clear he's not getting involved.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
Yeah, at least you don't have to wait to see
if that phone's going to ring. I mean, that's one
of those things it's up to the last minute. And
we had clemency granted in one case that we covered
then that phone literally was ringing a minute before his execution.
So this at least gets that mystery off the table.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
Yes, there will be no nail biting on this one,
but he This is an interesting case because Nichols confessed
to killing Karen Pulley. She was a twenty year old
student at Chattanooga State University back in nineteen eighty eight,
and he was convicted for the rape and murder of her,
so he confessed to that. He also confessed to raping
(06:46):
several other women in the Chattanooga area. He said he
was sorry, he expressed remorse, but he did say, hey,
you know what, if y'all hadn't caught me, I would
have continued this violent behavior. But it's because he admitted
it and because he feels sorry for it, he thinks,
or at least that's the argument his attorneys are making
for him to not be executed.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
I mean his attorneys, other attorneys, other families, other people
in the legal field. And we've seen cases like this
where there is a hint of leniency. I don't want
to talk about just in death row death penalty cases,
but they do give credit for someone who is remorseful,
for someone who has taken accountability and responsibility for their crimes.
There is some element of that. So should he just
(07:29):
be life in prison because he confessed, You can't get
that out there. Then everybody who had a death penalty
case would just say, you know what, I'm a plead
guilty and take the death penalty off the table.
Speaker 3 (07:39):
He thinks it should be off the table.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
Wouldn't that be interesting?
Speaker 3 (07:41):
Though?
Speaker 2 (07:42):
From a financial and a logistical standpoint, if you actually
had someone plead guilty and not have to go through
the lengthy trial process, then the lengthy appeals processes that
have to are process sees. How do I how you
say that that have to take place when you have
a death penalty case. Wouldn't it be interesting if that
was potentially I mean, I do think that some prosecutors,
it's on a case by case basis, do take that
(08:03):
into consideration whether or not they pursue the death penalty.
If you plead guilty and you save us and spare
us the time and money of a trial, we will
consider giving you life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
I don't know how many people get that option, because
it obviously has to be a very major murder case.
But do you take your chances I'm going to spend
the rest of my life in prison or I'm going
to face an execution in thirty years?
Speaker 2 (08:29):
Yeah, I mean that is the reality, right, that's the reality.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
It might just take your chances the hell with it.
Might as well try trial because those aren't good options.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
I might die of natural causes in thirty years anyway,
so who cares? But in his clemency petition from his attorneys.
They actually said this, and I didn't realize this. They
say that Nichols would be the first person in the
state of Tennessee to be executed for a crime that
he pleaded guilty to since the day death penalty was
(09:00):
reinstated in nineteen seventy eight.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
And some people would say, so what you did the
crime period, I don't give if you confess to it,
a play guilty to it or not. You did it,
so that changes nothing. So why are you today in
this moment trying to make that argument. I could see
the pushback.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
On that he did the crime, but he wants to
do the time. He doesn't want it to end. I
guess is his points. He's willing to serve for the
rest of his life. But and at this point now,
if the governor says he's not going to get involved,
it doesn't seem as though sixty four year old Nichols
has much of a shot. So he is scheduled to
(09:37):
die tomorrow by lethal injection in the state of Tennessee.
But there is another major issue that the Supreme Court
is taking up. This is about an execution that state
lawmakers or at least the Attorney General's office wants to schedule,
but has been told no. His death penalty or his
(09:59):
death conviction has been vacated to a life sentence, but
they want that to change, and they've gotten the Supreme
Court involved, and the Supreme Court is taking a look
at this case out of Alabama today.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
All right, folks will continue here on Amy and TJ.
A number of execution headlines. A man executed last night
in Florida. That's their eighteenth of the year, a record pace.
There on another man's schedule to die tomorrow night in Tennessee.
And today the Supreme Court is hearing arguments in the case.
They could change who gets executed in this country and
(10:41):
robes this. I was first struck by this story to
hear that a state is fighting so desperately to kill
a man that they will take it to the Supreme Court,
like we want him dead so bad that we're willing
to take it this far when lower courts have said
you shouldn't execute this man.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Yeah, there are two lower federal courts who have said
that Joseph Smith should not be put to death because
they say that he has an intellectual disability. And so
the big question for the Supreme Court to try and
figure out now is what determines an intellectual disability. And
(11:22):
the lower courts and several people who are mental health
professionals say one IQ test, or even multiple IQ tests
alone should not determine whether or not somebody is mentally
incapable or has a mental disability that's severe enough that
they shouldn't be executed for their crime. That IQ test,
(11:44):
they actually have a number seventy correct.
Speaker 3 (11:47):
That they landed on.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
And look, the Supreme Court itself set precedent in two
thousand and two with a case essentially saying who is
or isn't considered intellectually disabled for the purpose of x acution,
And so seventy was kind of made as some kind
of a number a marker there. So if you score
seventy or below on an IQ test, you're considered to
be intellectually disabled. The problem with this, particularly inmate role,
(12:11):
is that he has scored on several tests between seventy
two and seventy eight. Obviously that's not great, right, Obviously
has a history, and his teachers and people in his
past have come back and they've they've done all these
assessments of where he's been So the Supreme Court is saying, actually,
you got to take into more in consideration than just
that number, because those are not always that dead on
(12:32):
an IQ test. So that makes sense. We can't just
say seventy and below, then you're this. If you score
seventy three, then you need to consider some other factors.
You can't just say, ah, it's not seventy. That is
what the Supreme Court precedent said, and that is what the.
Speaker 3 (12:45):
Fight is over.
Speaker 2 (12:46):
Now. Yeah, I mean, and that makes a lot of sense.
I'm not sure how accurate an IQ test is. In
the fact that he's taken five IQ tests and he's
ranged from seventy two to seventy eight just shows you
there is a margin of error. And that's seventy two
two score you would think would fall within the margin
of error of seventy being the case. And at least
the lower courts agreed that you have to take into
(13:08):
other considerations. You pointed out. They brought in some grade
school teachers, they brought in other anecdotal evidence from people
who have interviewed him and spoken with him and talked
with him and said, this man is intellectually disabled. And
so those two courts both agreed and said this sentence
needs to be his death sentence needs to be vacated.
He needs to be given life in prison. But yeah,
(13:30):
Alabama's like they're not having it. They are pursuing it,
taking it all the way to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
And I'm sure they put in and the statements, put
out some statements and I'm sure they say the people
of justice demand and we want to follow through and
what the people have ruled. I'm sure that's it, and
they're following and they want to pursue this to the end.
And maybe they want to. I haven't seen about the
families on this one. Maybe they do want to pursue
this to the end. But you talk about robes expense,
(13:56):
how much this costs, not just to hows these particular inmates.
Death row inmates have to be the most expensive on
the block because they're in court constantly appeals. Right, the
government has to fight that stuff as they send these appeals.
So this is a guy, were like, just leave them
in prison now, Like that is the idea that we
(14:19):
are fighting so desperately to kill a guy?
Speaker 2 (14:23):
Is?
Speaker 3 (14:24):
Hey, it's justice, is what we call justice.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
And this matters this case is really important because this
is going to affect potentially so many other cases right now.
One hundred and forty two people in this country since
two thousand and two, since that Supreme Court ruling you
talked about, have had their death sentences vacated because they
met the standards of being intellectually disabled. So we're talking
(14:48):
about a number of inmates already who I should say
benefited from or at least their lives were spared because
of this two thousand and two ruling. If they go
against that, if they rule in any other way, it's
going to effect I'm certain, hundreds of cases from this
day forward. Now here's what Alabama argued. They said, Joseph
Smith is not intellectually disabled, and the Eighth Amendment does
(15:12):
not override the death sentence he earned for murdering Dirk
Van Dam, and that is the victim in this case.
According to court documents, they say Smith somehow gave this
Van Dam thirty five blunt force injuries from a saw
(15:33):
using a saw on his neck, shoulder, and back. I mean,
it was a brutal, vicious, horrific murder. And so they're
pointing to the viciousness of it and saying this man
knew what he was doing. He was not intellectually disabled
while he was committing this atrocity.
Speaker 1 (15:48):
Okay, I get Okay, they want to pursue it, that's fine,
and the families and other people might want justice.
Speaker 3 (15:54):
And this needs to be just the idea that it's
worth it to us, like we are fighting to kill
this guy.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
It's just that idea is something. But yeah, these headlines
and the hell of a year. It has been the
highest numbers we've seen. What do we have to forty
five forty six now executions in this country, highest number
we've seen in a decade plus at this point.
Speaker 3 (16:12):
So one more scheduled next week. That's Florida, I believe right.
Speaker 2 (16:16):
Correct, Yes, Florida should be at nineteen by next week.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
And that's the last one scheduled in the country. We'll
see what happens in Tennessee. We'll keep an eye on
these arguments at the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (16:26):
All right, And with that, everyone, thank you for listening
to us. I'm Amy Roeboch alongside TJ. Holmes. We will
talk to you soon.
Hey there, folks, it is Wednesday, December tenth. Do you
have any last words? A Florida death row inmate which
asked that last night right before he was given a
lethal injection, and this morning people are still confused about
his last words. And with that, welcome to this episode
(00:24):
of Amy and TJ and Robes. We have been covering
a lot of executions. We hear about last words, last meals. Look,
we have that to talk about from last night. We
have another execution coming up tomorrow night in the Supreme
Court today on There's Wednesday is taking up a very
major execution related case. It's been an execution year, really,
it feels like in this country.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
Yes, and this is an execution podcast because there are
three major headlines that you just described to talk about
right now. We can begin with last night in Florida,
fifty eight year old Mark Allan Gerald's pronounced dead at
six fifteen pm lethal injection. And there was a description
(01:04):
of how that lethal injection went by the witnesses who
were there in the room. They said that he took
about a dozen deep breaths. They say his body quivered
and twitched, but within three to four minutes he was
still and pronounced dead a few moments later, But it
was before that all took place his last words that
(01:24):
got a lot of attention from folks. Of course, he
was asked it he addressed someone by name, but the
name was not discernible, it was inaudible. They didn't know
who he said. But after he said this person's name,
he went on to say, I'm sorry that I missed you.
I loved you every day. That left a lot of
(01:46):
head scratching.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
Hey, here we out.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
We don't know who he was talking to and what
he was talking about. Really, it's the last words he'll
ever have. Maybe somebody will come out and explain and
who he was talking to. Maybe that person was in
the room and they'll tell us.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
But so far no, And it was interesting as far
as who came up and who showed up. Look, this
is a crime that happened in nineteen eighty nine and
the victim in this case, her name was Tresa Pettibone.
But the state said that eight people on behalf of
Tresa were there for that execution to witness that execution.
(02:20):
That is fairly unheard of at this point, but it
just went to show the gravity of the situation. In fact,
her family gave a statement following the death of her murderer.
And a lot of times we've been reporting on families
not wanting executions to go forward, wanting there to be
(02:41):
not the eye for an eye, a tooth for a
tooth sentiment. But that was not the case from the
Pettybone family.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
Oh and you have to appreciate now what your heart
goes out to them for. Yes, they've lost someone, but
why do you have to sit and wait thirty something
years for somebody to be executed? Why are you having
to deal with another appeal and having to be contacted
by the state once again to say that this.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
Is why, why why why?
Speaker 1 (03:01):
That's Look, I'm not plotting, and we've come around and
talked about here openly about issues with the death penalty.
But you have Santa, since one argument he makes is
that we got I'm signing these because we've had these
families waiting for too long. That's an argument, at least
at least when you talk to this family.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
Okay, I get that.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
Yeah, think about all the executions we have covered this year,
but particularly in the last few months. Can you think
of any of them that have been within even a
decade or two decades. We're talking three decades almost for
all of the executions we've been describing, they were all
in the nineteen eighties, nineteen nineties.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
Yeah, so he's moving that and process along. And look, Florida,
we talked about there on a record pace. This was
their eighteenth of the year, and they've the record before.
This was eight the most they had ever executed in
one year with eight people, and now they're up to
eighteen in will or at least scheduled to get to
nineteen by the time the month is out. And again
Desanta's we talked about as well, there are more drugs
(04:05):
now available and there was a little delay because some
of these things are seen as cruel and unusual, and
now states have more access to the drugs they need
to execute people.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
Fine, but Florida ain't messing around here.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
They are not messing around and so yes, and I
think the Pettibone family was certainly appreciative of that because
in their statement here is what they wrote. This was
right after the execution took place. They said, tomorrow, when
we wake up, it will be the first time in
nearly thirty seven years that we don't have to worry
about another appeal being filed or another law changing that
(04:38):
could potentially thwart the justice we have been fighting so
hard for so long.
Speaker 1 (04:45):
And my argument, if there should be a law if
the family of the victim doesn't want the person executed,
we should follow their wishes.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
Right.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
They shouldn't decide if the person dies, but they should
decide if the person doesn't die. This was a family
that was clearly supportive of this going through.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
They were supportive, and honestly so was Gerald's because his
death warrant was actually signed last month by DeSantis and
he told the judge, I don't want to pursue any
further appeals, and the judge said, no problem, signed off
on Gerald's decision. I think he's the second inmate we've
heard that. Actually, it's remarkable. We've talked about this as well.
(05:24):
Despite the conditions that it might be to be in
death row or to be in a maximum security prison
for decades, it seems as though, regardless of the conditions,
these inmates want to live. For the most part, it's
rare that you see an inmate not fight for a
stay of execution.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
Yeah, he's just the second out of the eighteen one
of the guys didn't as well. But yeah, no matter what,
to the end, we've seen that desperately fighting to stay
a lot.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
Yeah, and that would be the case with tomorrow's execution,
Thursday's execution out of Tennessee. Even though we've already heard
from the governor on this, he said, yeah, I'm not
going to get involved in this execution. This is Harold
Wayne Nichols, sixty four years old, but he is fighting
his execution, even though the governor made that statement and
(06:10):
made it pretty clear he's not getting involved.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
Yeah, at least you don't have to wait to see
if that phone's going to ring. I mean, that's one
of those things it's up to the last minute. And
we had clemency granted in one case that we covered
then that phone literally was ringing a minute before his execution.
So this at least gets that mystery off the table.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
Yes, there will be no nail biting on this one,
but he This is an interesting case because Nichols confessed
to killing Karen Pulley. She was a twenty year old
student at Chattanooga State University back in nineteen eighty eight,
and he was convicted for the rape and murder of her,
so he confessed to that. He also confessed to raping
(06:46):
several other women in the Chattanooga area. He said he
was sorry, he expressed remorse, but he did say, hey,
you know what, if y'all hadn't caught me, I would
have continued this violent behavior. But it's because he admitted
it and because he feels sorry for it, he thinks,
or at least that's the argument his attorneys are making
for him to not be executed.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
I mean his attorneys, other attorneys, other families, other people
in the legal field. And we've seen cases like this
where there is a hint of leniency. I don't want
to talk about just in death row death penalty cases,
but they do give credit for someone who is remorseful,
for someone who has taken accountability and responsibility for their crimes.
There is some element of that. So should he just
(07:29):
be life in prison because he confessed, You can't get
that out there. Then everybody who had a death penalty
case would just say, you know what, I'm a plead
guilty and take the death penalty off the table.
Speaker 3 (07:39):
He thinks it should be off the table.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
Wouldn't that be interesting?
Speaker 3 (07:41):
Though?
Speaker 2 (07:42):
From a financial and a logistical standpoint, if you actually
had someone plead guilty and not have to go through
the lengthy trial process, then the lengthy appeals processes that
have to are process sees. How do I how you
say that that have to take place when you have
a death penalty case. Wouldn't it be interesting if that
was potentially I mean, I do think that some prosecutors,
it's on a case by case basis, do take that
(08:03):
into consideration whether or not they pursue the death penalty.
If you plead guilty and you save us and spare
us the time and money of a trial, we will
consider giving you life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
I don't know how many people get that option, because
it obviously has to be a very major murder case.
But do you take your chances I'm going to spend
the rest of my life in prison or I'm going
to face an execution in thirty years?
Speaker 2 (08:29):
Yeah, I mean that is the reality, right, that's the reality.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
It might just take your chances the hell with it.
Might as well try trial because those aren't good options.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
I might die of natural causes in thirty years anyway,
so who cares? But in his clemency petition from his attorneys.
They actually said this, and I didn't realize this. They
say that Nichols would be the first person in the
state of Tennessee to be executed for a crime that
he pleaded guilty to since the day death penalty was
(09:00):
reinstated in nineteen seventy eight.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
And some people would say, so what you did the
crime period, I don't give if you confess to it,
a play guilty to it or not. You did it,
so that changes nothing. So why are you today in
this moment trying to make that argument. I could see
the pushback.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
On that he did the crime, but he wants to
do the time. He doesn't want it to end. I
guess is his points. He's willing to serve for the
rest of his life. But and at this point now,
if the governor says he's not going to get involved,
it doesn't seem as though sixty four year old Nichols
has much of a shot. So he is scheduled to
(09:37):
die tomorrow by lethal injection in the state of Tennessee.
But there is another major issue that the Supreme Court
is taking up. This is about an execution that state
lawmakers or at least the Attorney General's office wants to schedule,
but has been told no. His death penalty or his
(09:59):
death conviction has been vacated to a life sentence, but
they want that to change, and they've gotten the Supreme
Court involved, and the Supreme Court is taking a look
at this case out of Alabama today.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
All right, folks will continue here on Amy and TJ.
A number of execution headlines. A man executed last night
in Florida. That's their eighteenth of the year, a record pace.
There on another man's schedule to die tomorrow night in Tennessee.
And today the Supreme Court is hearing arguments in the case.
They could change who gets executed in this country and
(10:41):
robes this. I was first struck by this story to
hear that a state is fighting so desperately to kill
a man that they will take it to the Supreme Court,
like we want him dead so bad that we're willing
to take it this far when lower courts have said
you shouldn't execute this man.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Yeah, there are two lower federal courts who have said
that Joseph Smith should not be put to death because
they say that he has an intellectual disability. And so
the big question for the Supreme Court to try and
figure out now is what determines an intellectual disability. And
(11:22):
the lower courts and several people who are mental health
professionals say one IQ test, or even multiple IQ tests
alone should not determine whether or not somebody is mentally
incapable or has a mental disability that's severe enough that
they shouldn't be executed for their crime. That IQ test,
(11:44):
they actually have a number seventy correct.
Speaker 3 (11:47):
That they landed on.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
And look, the Supreme Court itself set precedent in two
thousand and two with a case essentially saying who is
or isn't considered intellectually disabled for the purpose of x acution,
And so seventy was kind of made as some kind
of a number a marker there. So if you score
seventy or below on an IQ test, you're considered to
be intellectually disabled. The problem with this, particularly inmate role,
(12:11):
is that he has scored on several tests between seventy
two and seventy eight. Obviously that's not great, right, Obviously
has a history, and his teachers and people in his
past have come back and they've they've done all these
assessments of where he's been So the Supreme Court is saying, actually,
you got to take into more in consideration than just
that number, because those are not always that dead on
(12:32):
an IQ test. So that makes sense. We can't just
say seventy and below, then you're this. If you score
seventy three, then you need to consider some other factors.
You can't just say, ah, it's not seventy. That is
what the Supreme Court precedent said, and that is what the.
Speaker 3 (12:45):
Fight is over.
Speaker 2 (12:46):
Now. Yeah, I mean, and that makes a lot of sense.
I'm not sure how accurate an IQ test is. In
the fact that he's taken five IQ tests and he's
ranged from seventy two to seventy eight just shows you
there is a margin of error. And that's seventy two
two score you would think would fall within the margin
of error of seventy being the case. And at least
the lower courts agreed that you have to take into
(13:08):
other considerations. You pointed out. They brought in some grade
school teachers, they brought in other anecdotal evidence from people
who have interviewed him and spoken with him and talked
with him and said, this man is intellectually disabled. And
so those two courts both agreed and said this sentence
needs to be his death sentence needs to be vacated.
He needs to be given life in prison. But yeah,
(13:30):
Alabama's like they're not having it. They are pursuing it,
taking it all the way to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
And I'm sure they put in and the statements, put
out some statements and I'm sure they say the people
of justice demand and we want to follow through and
what the people have ruled. I'm sure that's it, and
they're following and they want to pursue this to the end.
And maybe they want to. I haven't seen about the
families on this one. Maybe they do want to pursue
this to the end. But you talk about robes expense,
(13:56):
how much this costs, not just to hows these particular inmates.
Death row inmates have to be the most expensive on
the block because they're in court constantly appeals. Right, the
government has to fight that stuff as they send these appeals.
So this is a guy, were like, just leave them
in prison now, Like that is the idea that we
(14:19):
are fighting so desperately to kill a guy?
Speaker 2 (14:23):
Is?
Speaker 3 (14:24):
Hey, it's justice, is what we call justice.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
And this matters this case is really important because this
is going to affect potentially so many other cases right now.
One hundred and forty two people in this country since
two thousand and two, since that Supreme Court ruling you
talked about, have had their death sentences vacated because they
met the standards of being intellectually disabled. So we're talking
(14:48):
about a number of inmates already who I should say
benefited from or at least their lives were spared because
of this two thousand and two ruling. If they go
against that, if they rule in any other way, it's
going to effect I'm certain, hundreds of cases from this
day forward. Now here's what Alabama argued. They said, Joseph
Smith is not intellectually disabled, and the Eighth Amendment does
(15:12):
not override the death sentence he earned for murdering Dirk
Van Dam, and that is the victim in this case.
According to court documents, they say Smith somehow gave this
Van Dam thirty five blunt force injuries from a saw
(15:33):
using a saw on his neck, shoulder, and back. I mean,
it was a brutal, vicious, horrific murder. And so they're
pointing to the viciousness of it and saying this man
knew what he was doing. He was not intellectually disabled
while he was committing this atrocity.
Speaker 1 (15:48):
Okay, I get Okay, they want to pursue it, that's fine,
and the families and other people might want justice.
Speaker 3 (15:54):
And this needs to be just the idea that it's
worth it to us, like we are fighting to kill
this guy.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
It's just that idea is something. But yeah, these headlines
and the hell of a year. It has been the
highest numbers we've seen. What do we have to forty
five forty six now executions in this country, highest number
we've seen in a decade plus at this point.
Speaker 3 (16:12):
So one more scheduled next week. That's Florida, I believe right.
Speaker 2 (16:16):
Correct, Yes, Florida should be at nineteen by next week.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
And that's the last one scheduled in the country. We'll
see what happens in Tennessee. We'll keep an eye on
these arguments at the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (16:26):
All right, And with that, everyone, thank you for listening
to us. I'm Amy Roeboch alongside TJ. Holmes. We will
talk to you soon.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Brothers Ortiz
The Brothers Ortiz is the story of two brothers–both successful, but in very different ways. Gabe Ortiz becomes a third-highest ranking officer in all of Texas while his younger brother Larry climbs the ranks in Puro Tango Blast, a notorious Texas Prison gang. Gabe doesn’t know all the details of his brother’s nefarious dealings, and he’s made a point not to ask, to protect their relationship. But when Larry is murdered during a home invasion in a rented beach house, Gabe has no choice but to look into what happened that night. To solve Larry’s murder, Gabe, and the whole Ortiz family, must ask each other tough questions.