Pending Executions
October   
20 Mark McClain* (GA)
27 Reginald Blanton* (Texas)

November
4  Paul Johnson* (FL
5 Khristian Oliver* (Texas)
10 Yosvanis Valle* (Texas)
10 John Allen Muhammad* (Virginia)
17 Gerald Eldridge* (Texas)
18 Danielle Simpson*  (Texas)(V)
19 Robert Thompson* (Texas)

December
2 Cecil Johnson Jr.* (Tenn)
8 Kenneth Biros * (Ohio)
9 Devin Banks (Tenn)

Recent Stays & Reprieves
October    
5 Larry  Elliott* (Virginia)(reprieve until at least mid-November)
9 Lawrence Reynolds, Jr.* (Ohio)
22 Christopher Kennedy (Penn)

November
10 Darryl Durr* (Ohio)

Recent Executions
October
8 Max Payne* (Alabama)
* "serious" execution date / (s) stay believed likely / (V) Volunteer / note this list may exclude any recently added execution date
(note that none of the Pennsylvania dates listed are likely actual execution dates)

• Lawrence Reynolds v. Strickland,  2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 21816; 2009 FED App. 0356P (6th Cir. 10/5/2009) (dissent) "An Ohio inmate's motion for a stay of his execution is granted and remanded for fact-finding and evidentiary hearings on the merits in light of Ohio's revision of its execution protocol in May 2009 where the state experienced serious and troubling difficulties in executing at least three inmates, giving rise to at least two questions: 1) whether Ohio is fully and competently adhering to the Ohio lethal injection protocol given (a) their failure to have a contingency plan in place should peripheral vein access be impossible, (b) issues related to the competence of the lethal injection team, and (c) other potential deficiencies; and 2) whether these instances present sufficient new, additional factors to revive petitioner's Eight Amendment claims otherwise extinguished by Cooey v. Strickland, 479 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2007)." [via FindLaw]

• State v.  Jorge Galindo, 278 Neb. 599 (Neb 10/9/2009) Relief denied, most notably on non-jury sentencing to death. "Galindo asserts, consolidated and restated, that the trial court erred in (1) finding that the retroactive application of L.B. 1 did not violate ex post facto principles, due process, or the prohibition against bills of attainder; (2) failing to find that the absence of notice of aggravation in the original information violated due process; (3) failing to find that L.B. 1 was an unconstitutional inducement to waive a jury finding of aggravating circumstances; (4) failing to grant a motion to quash the information that alleged alternative theories of first degree murder; (5) overruling Galindo’s step instruction on felony murder; (6) overruling Galindo’s motions for change of venue; (7) making inappropriate comments to the venire prior to jury selection that emphasized their duty to serve as jurors; (8) informing the jury during voir dire that it would have no role in sentencing; (9) failing to allow Galindo to “‘life qualify’” the venire; (10) failing to strike certain jurors for cause; and (11) receiving into evidence a photograph of Lundell’s body. Galindo asserts that the sentencing panel erred in (12) considering the presentence investigation as part of weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances; (13) failing to receive as evidence, for purposes of the panel’s proportionality review, sentencing orders from first degree murder cases where the death penalty was not imposed; (14) allowing consideration of the victim impact statements; and (15) sentencing him to electrocution, which is cruel and unusual punishment."

• Jeffrey Lee v. State,  2009 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 132 (Ala. Crim. App.  10/9/2009) Relief denied in this jury override case on claims pertaining to: (A) trial courts findings relating to defective pleading; (B) whether trial court "erred in failing to consider the cumulative effect of counsel's alleged errors in considering the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims;" (C) trial courts incorporation, without alteration, of the State's proposed order; (D) IAC at both the guilt phase and the penalty phase without an evidentiary hearing (use of jury's recommendation of life as to IAC findings of prejudice;  ineffective because counsel failed to investigate for the guilt phase [(1)counsel failed to interview State witnesses, (2) failed to obtain the assistance of a firearms expert, (3) failed to investigate Lee's version of the events, and (4) failed to investigate the physical evidence;  "counsel failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence, which, he says, consisted of his family history, his mental-health issues, and his substance abuse; death qualification of jurors; failure to object during voir dire; use of experts; failure to object to jury isntructions; concession of guilt; failure to move for recusal; and performance at judicial sentencing) (E) lethal injection; (F) defaulted claims (juror misconduct, challenges to Alabama scheme, and unconstitutional as applied); and (G) cummulative

• Vernon Lamar Yancey v. State, 2009 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 126 (Ala. Crim. App.  10/9/2009) On return from remand so that the trial court could appropriately reweigh jury's recommendation of a life sentence, judicial override of that recommendation in light of reweighing affirmed.

• Derrick Lon Jackson  v. Thaler,  2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 22287 (5th Cir 10/9/2009)(unpublished)  COA denied "on the district court's rejection of his arguments that the 2007 judgment against him was void pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) and should be set aside pursuant to Rule 60(d)(3) because his court-appointed attorneys perpetrated a fraud on the court."

• John Alvalos Alba v. Thaler,  2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 22263 (5th Cir 10/8/2009) (unpublished) COA denied on "1. The State's decision to seek the death penalty was racially motivated 1 and therefore violated his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments" and  " 2.  Racially motivated imposition of the death penalty is contrary to "evolving standards of decency" and violates the Eighth Amendment."

• Ex parte Bobby Wayne Woods, 2009 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1432 (Tex. Crim. App. 10/7/2009) "[W]e decide that applicant's additional evidence does not compellingly or dramatically undermine the previously considered substantial evidence that supports a finding that applicant is not mentally retarded. Even with a consideration of applicant's additional evidence, a rational finder of fact could still find that applicant is not mentally retarded and that applicant manufactured a mental-retardation claim in an attempt to escape the ultimate punishment for the brutal murder of an eleven-year-old girl. Applicant's current successive habeas corpus application, therefore, does not meet the requirements of Article 11.071, § 5(a)(3). " More at the CCA blog, including the oral argument.
  

• Commonwealth v. John Amos Small, 2009 Pa. LEXIS 2105 (Penn 10/5/2009) (dissent) "A post conviction court erred by granting defendant a new trial regarding his murder conviction as defendant failed to show that the outcome of the trial would have been different had two particular witnesses been called, his then-wife's testimony did not meet the exception under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5914, and no conflict of interest was shown." [via Lexis]
  

• Bigler Jobe Stouffer II v. Workman,  2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 22188 (10th Cir 10/8/2009) (unpublished) In Oklahoma, a death row inmate  "is not entitled to earned credits because his death sentence is not a "term of imprisonment" within the meaning of Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 138."

• State v. Fry,  2009 Ohio 5315; 2009 Ohio LEXIS 2824 (Ohio 10/7/2009) Motion for continuance of oral argument denied.