LOCKETT v. EVANS
2014 OK 33
| Okla. | 2014Background
- Two condemned inmates (Lockett and Warner) sued the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (DOC) and its interim Director seeking declaratory relief and an injunction challenging the 2011 amendment to 22 O.S. § 1015(B), which makes confidential the identities of persons and sources involved in executions and exempts drug purchases from central purchasing rules.
- Plaintiffs asserted § 1015(B) denied them due process and access to courts by hiding both the source and identity of execution drugs, impaired their ability to mount Eighth Amendment challenges, and that the DOC protocol is an APA "rule."
- Case was removed to federal court and remanded; the District Court later held the secrecy provision unconstitutional as a denial of access to courts but declined to stay executions, finding stay jurisdiction lay with the Court of Criminal Appeals.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals reset execution dates, declined a stay (finding limited statutory authority to stay), and later refused to act on this Court's transfer ordering it to consider a stay. The state appealed the District Court decision on constitutionality to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
- Confronted with the Court of Criminal Appeals' refusal to act and the inmates' grave constitutional claims, the Oklahoma Supreme Court exercised its Article 7, §4 authority, invoked the rule of necessity, retained jurisdiction over the appeals, consolidated them, and issued a stay of execution pending expedited resolution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1015(B) secrecy provision denies access to courts and violates due process by preventing meaningful challenge to execution method | § 1015(B) bars notice of drugs and sources, denying access to courts and ability to vindicate Eighth Amendment rights | DOC relied on § 1015(B) to withhold drug identity/source; in appellate posture the DOC did not contest the District Court's finding of denial of access | District Court found § 1015(B) unconstitutional as denial of access; Oklahoma Supreme Court did not finally decide merits here but accepted the issue for expedited review and issued a stay pending appeal |
| Whether the DOC execution protocol is an APA "rule" requiring notice-and-comment | Protocol is a statement of general applicability prescribing procedure and thus an APA rule | Protocol is an internal execution procedure not subject to APA (DOC contends) | Trial court held APA not applicable; the Oklahoma Supreme Court retained the question for expedited appellate resolution (no final disposition in this opinion) |
| Whether Oklahoma Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals has authority to hear/exercise emergency stay in these execution-related challenges | Plaintiffs sought access to any appellate tribunal to consider stay based on constitutional claims | DOC argued appeals/stay related to criminal execution procedure and should be in Court of Criminal Appeals | Supreme Court exercised constitutional power under Article 7, §4 and the rule of necessity, retained jurisdiction to decide stay issue, and granted a stay pending appellate resolution |
| Whether a stay of execution should issue pending appeal | Stay needed to preserve ability to secure judicial review of constitutional claims about execution method | Court of Criminal Appeals had previously denied stay; DOC asked transfer of stay matter there | Oklahoma Supreme Court granted an interim stay of execution pending final determination and expedited appeals; consolidated appeals for review |
Key Cases Cited
- Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) (Eighth Amendment standards for capital punishment)
- United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980) (rule of necessity doctrine permitting disqualified judges to act when no alternative exists)
- Fent v. Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Auth., 984 P.2d 200 (Okla. 1999) (discussing judicial authority and constitutional questions)
- Maynard v. Layden, 830 P.2d 581 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992) (criminal-court jurisdictional precedent cited by dissent)
- Clemons v. Crawford, 585 F.3d 1119 (8th Cir. 2009) (federal precedent concerning lethal-injection challenges cited by dissent)