Replies

Didn't the US Supreme Court rule in the early 1970s that the death penalty as it was applied at that time was uncontitutional? As I recall the death rows of all the states were emptied due to this ruling. If he was convicted in 1984 for the murder that was committed in 1966, then he had to have been convicted under the laws that existed in 1966.

I'm just curious how the federal courts ever let the death sentence stand at all in this case. How old is this convict now? If he committed murder in 1966 (almost 38 years ago), he couldn't be young.

In 1966, when the murder was committed the death penalty was legal everywhere.

Kelley was convicted of the murder in 1984, long after the USSC went through its circus act in the 1970s, first finding the death penalty unconstitutional and then reversing itself several years later.

So none of the court's antics applied to his case.

Click my link in post 3.

BTW, it may interest you to know that, among many other frivolous moves, Kelley tried challenging his death penalty sentence on the basis of an ex post facto objection.

Here are the brief comments on this from the Florida SC:

[24] We turn now to Kelley's argument that the application of the death penalty statute to a crime committed before its enactment in its present state is ex post facto. Although this claim was specifically rejected by the Supreme Court in Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 53 L. Ed. 2d 344, 97 S. Ct. 2290 (1977), Kelley argues that the issue should be reconsidered because Dobbert has been overruled by Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423, 96 L. Ed. 2d 351, 107 S. Ct. 2446 (1987).*fn5

[25] The Miller decision did not change the ex post facto analysis, as Kelley contends, nor did it in any way imply that Dobbert was no longer good law. Indeed, the Court in Miller referred to Dobbert several times as an example of a statutory change which did not violate ex post facto standards. Accordingly, we reject Kelley's argument that the ex post facto issue should be revisited.