Biden commuted 37 inmates’ death sentences. Why two of them said no thanks

Share:
Biden commuted 37 inmates’ death sentences. Why two of them said no thanks
Author: Gustaf Kilander
Published: Jan, 07 2025 15:41

Two prisoners who insist they are innocent are worried the commutations could hinder their appeals. Last month, Biden commuted the death sentences of 37 federal inmates in a move that was applauded by anti-death penalty advocates. But two of those prisoners, Shannon Agofsky and Len Davis, who are imprisoned at the U.S. Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, have filed emergency motions requesting injunctions to prevent their death sentences from being commuted, saying they are still trying to prove their innocence and believe the commutations could put their appeals at risk.

 [Guard towers rise above the grounds of the Federal Correctional Complex Terre Haute on July 25, 2019 in Terre Haute, Indiana. Two inmates at the complex have rejected the commutations of their death sentences]
Image Credit: The Independent [Guard towers rise above the grounds of the Federal Correctional Complex Terre Haute on July 25, 2019 in Terre Haute, Indiana. Two inmates at the complex have rejected the commutations of their death sentences]

Death penalty appeals undergo a special process known as heightened scrutiny, with courts carefully examining such cases for mistakes because of the severe consequences of the sentence. While the process doesn’t necessarily give prisoners a better chance of winning their appeal, Agofsky noted in his filing that he doesn’t want to lose the heightened scrutiny process.

“To commute his sentence now, while the defendant has active litigation in court, is to strip him of the protection of heightened scrutiny. This constitutes an undue burden, and leaves the defendant in a position of fundamental unfairness, which would decimate his pending appellate procedures,” his filing states.

Meanwhile, Davis said in his filing that he “has always maintained that having a death sentence would draw attention to the overwhelming misconduct” that he claims the Department of Justice is guilty of. He added that he “thanks the court for its prompt attention to this fast-moving constitutional conundrum. The case law on this issue is quite murky.”.

Share:

More for You

Top Followed