Jackson Free Press

The Jackson Free Press last week requested an interview with Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood about the pending Michelle Byrom execution.

He so far has declined an interview issued this statement instead. Needless to say, we still have questions.

Reprinted verbatim:

Basis for Requesting an Execution Date When Certiorari has been denied in a case, pursuant to the rules of the United States Supreme Court, the order of denial is legally effective as of the time of its entry by the Supreme Court and the Mississippi Supreme Court may then take further appropriate action in light of that denial. It is at that time, that the State must file a motion to set an execution date and pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-106, assert in the motion, “that all state and federal remedies have been exhausted . . . .” The denial of certiorari after federal habeas corpus litigation has normally been the end of the normal litigation in a death penalty case. Then, pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-29, “the Supreme Court of Mississippi shall forthwith fix a day, not more than thirty (30) days distant from the date of said denial or the vacating of any stay entered by any federal court, for the execution of the sentence, and a warrant shall forthwith issue accordingly.” The State filed the motions to set execution dates in both Byrom and Crawford on the day of the denial of Certiorari, which was February 24, 2014. The Mississippi Supreme Court then ordered responses to those motions from Crawford and Byrom. Crawford filed his response on February 28, 2014, and Byrom filed hers on March 3, 2014. Both motions are still pending with the Mississippi Supreme Court as of March 25, 2014. We would also note that both Byrom and Crawford filed motions with the Mississippi Supreme Court for leave to be allowed to file a successive petition for post-conviction relief in the trial court. Those motions are likewise pending before the Court. In the past, in such situations, the Court has withheld setting an execution date until it has taken action on those motions. Thus, it is doubtful that any dates will be set in either of these cases until the Court has ruled on those motions.

The Campaign for Southern Equality and Mississippi-native Rev. Susan Hrostowski filed a lawsuit against several state officials, saying that House Bill 1523 is unconstitutional, late last week.

The lawsuit states that House Bill 1523 violates the first and fourteenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution and asks the U.S. District Court to enjoin the bill from becoming law on July 1. New York-based attorney Roberta Kaplan, who won same-sex couples the right to marry and adopt in this state, will represent the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit names the governor, attorney general, the executive director of MDHS, and the state registrar for vital records as defendants. Several floor debate comments from the 2016 legislative session about the bill are used in the initial complaint. The complaint draws the distinction between Mississippi's Religious Freedom Restoration Act and The Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act.

"Critically, the Mississippi RFRA does not single out any particular religious belief or creed and privilege it above all others..." the complaint says. "HB 1523, however, starkly departs from this tradition and practice by providing additional rights and benefits and by extending well beyond those available under RFRA, but only to individuals or entities that espouse one of three specific beliefs: (a) that '[m]arriage is or should be recognized as union of one man and one woman,' (b) that '[s]exual relations are properly reserved to' a marriage between one man and one woman, or (c) male and female 'refer to an individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at the time of birth.'"

The ACLU and the Mississippi Center for Justice have both filed lawsuits, asking the courts to rule House Bill 1523 unconstitutional, and Kaplan filed a motion to re-open the case that legalized same-sex marriage in Mississippi, due to HB1523's passage. The Campaign for Southern Equality's lawsuit is the third lawsuit filed against House Bill 1523 and the fourth legal challenge.