Amy Howe

Nov 23 2022

Court declines to block execution of Missouri man who says his conviction was tainted by racial bias

The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to block the execution of Kevin Johnson, who is scheduled to die by lethal injection in Missouri on Nov. 29.

There were no recorded dissents from the court’s brief order.

Johnson was convicted and received the death penalty for the 2005 shooting death of William McEntee, a police officer. Johnson came to the Supreme Court on Nov. 10, asking the justices to put his execution on hold to give the justices time to consider his challenges to the constitutionality of his conviction and sentence. At Johnson’s first trial, two white jurors who made racist statements refused to join the rest of the jury in voting to convict Johnson – who is Black – of second-degree murder, which would not have carried the death penalty. Johnson argued that his second trial, at which he was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, did not fix the constitutional violation at his first trial.

Johnson also argued that he should not be executed because he was only 19 at the time of the crime and suffered from severe mental illness. The Supreme Court held in Roper v. Simmons that the execution of defendants who were under the age of 18 when they committed their crimes violates the 8th Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Johnson urged the justices to extend that rule to defendants under the age of 21, contending that (among other things) scientists now believe that the human brain is not fully mature until after 21.

The state countered that Johnson’s first trial was the “‘classic example’ of a properly declared mistrial.” Any problems in that trial, the state contended, were remedied with his second trial. Nothing has happened since Roper, the state continued, to require an expansion of that decision to cover defendants who were under the age of 21 at the time of their crime. And in any event, the state concluded, Johnson waited too long to bring his claims.

This post is also published on SCOTUSblog.

Amy L Howe
Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and reporter for SCOTUSblog, a blog devoted to coverage of the Supreme Court of the United States; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
Tweets by @AHoweBlogger
Recent ScotusBlog Posts from Amy
  • David Souter, retired Supreme Court justice, dies at 85
  • Venezuelan TPS recipients tell justices to let status stand
  • Government asks justices to allow DHS to revoke parole for a half-million noncitizens
More from Amy Howe

Recent Posts

  • Court appears to back legality of HHS preventative care task force
  • Justices take up Texas woman’s claim against USPS
  • Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes
  • Justices temporarily bar government from removing Venezuelan men under Alien Enemies Act
  • Court hears challenge to ACA preventative-care coverage
Site built and optimized by Sound Strategies