User:Joeconnick

Facts Of The Case

Wallace Wilkerson, a stock man of the Utah territory was charged with premeditated murder on Nov 22nd, 1877, for intentionally shooting and killing William Baxter, a man with whom he had had several disagreements prior. Only two days after opening statements, Wilkerson was sentenced to die on December 14th 1877 by Judge P.H. Emerson. Despite claiming innocence after conviction,Wilkerson elected for execution by firing squad, as opposed to decapitation or hanging. The following year, Wilkerson appealed to the appellate court on the grounds that execution by firing squad presented unnecessary cruelty and unusual punishment. His lawyers, Hodge and Williams argued that because of the nature of firing squads, his 8th amendment right to protection from cruel and unusual punishment had been infringed. His appeal was later struck down in the supreme court, where they upheld the initial decision of the First Court of the Territory of Utah. Justice Nathan Clifford delivered the opinion of the court. This decision would later be cited in Baze V. Rees (2008) in affirming that lethal injection was not cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th amendment. However, stemming from the decision from the courts regarding a firing squad being permissible the courts found that old English practices such as a prisoner being emboweled alive, beheaded, or being burned alive was ruled unconstitutional.

Opinion of the Court:

Justice Clifford delivered the opinion of the court and stated that prisoner Mr. Wilkerson was legally charged with first-degree murder with malicious intent. He pleaded not guilty and later was indicted by a grand jury. He was given a fair trial and at the end of it he was found not guilty of murder of the first degree. The court sentenced him to be taken to a place where he would be held until his last named day where he would finally be publicly shot until dead. Provision of the law states, that every person guilty of murder in the first degree shall suffer death. The antecedent law states that “when any person shall be convicted of any crime the punishment of which is death,… he shall suffer death by being shot, hung, or beheaded as the court may direct,” or as the convicted person chooses. In his opinion he states that a person guilty of first degree murder “shall suffer death”, which is exactly what the statute says. Section 10 of the code states that when a person convicted of murder to the first degree cruel and unusual punishment shall not be inflicted. The Court held that organized territories are given legislative power,"which extends to all rightful subjects of legislation not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States. Congress organized the Territory of Utah on the 9th of September, 1850, and provided that the legislative power and authority of the territory shall be vested in the governor and legislative assembly." "Proceedings in the court of original jurisdiction being ended, the prisoner sued out a writ of error and removed the cause into the Supreme Court of the Territory, where the judgment of the subordinate court was affirmed. Final judgment having been rendered in the Supreme Court of the Territory, the prisoner sued out the present writ of error, the act of Congress providing that such a writ from this court to the Supreme Court of the Territory will lie in criminal cases where the accused is sentenced to capital punishment."

Subsequent Developments

The decision of Wallace V Wilkerson has influenced modern precedence and recent Supreme Court decisions as well. Baze V Rees (2008) was a supreme court case where legal injection was found constitutional, such that it did not qualify as cruel or unusual punishment. Baze V Rees would later be cited in arguments for constitutionality of lethal injection in the landmark case Glossip v. Gross (2015).

Glossip V Gross (2015)

Main Article: Glossip v. Gross

In June 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5-4 that the chemical midazolam being used in lethal injection was not unconstitutional under the 8th amendment. The result of the decision lead to precedent that prisoners sentenced to death can not challenge their method of execution without providing an available alternative.