Just why is it “not in the public’s best interest” for the feds to refuse to transfer to Oklahoma a prisoner scheduled for execution?
I recall a notable case from just over a decade ago in which Rhode Island was refusing to turn a suspected murderer in state custody to the federal government because of concern that he would be subject to the federal death penalty (see story blogged here and here). As noted here, the en banc First Circuit ultimately ruled that Rhode Island had to surrender custody of Pleau for trial on pending federal charges. Pleau thereafter pleaded guilty to federal murder charges and avoided being sentenced to death, but not before engendering lots of interesting and notable discussion of federal and state criminal justice authority and power (see, e.g., this commentary explaining why “the decision about appropriate criminal sentencing, and particularly about the application of the death penalty, [should be placed] back into the hands of individual states [in order] to reverse the trend toward the federalization of criminal law”).
This bit of capital history, and the question in the title of this post, all came to mind when I focused on this notable recent news piece out of Oklahoma. The story is headlined “Federal inmate set for state execution denied transfer to Oklahoma custody,” and here are excerpts:
The Oklahoma attorney general is asking the U.S. Bureau of Prisons to reconsider a decision his office says could amount to unprecedented federal interference in the state’s execution process.
Federal officials have denied the state’s request to transfer federal inmate George John Hanson, known as John Fitzgerald Hanson in his Oklahoma death-sentence case. A Tulsa County jury found Hanson guilty of murdering retired Tulsa banker Mary Bowles and Owasso trucking company owner Jerald Thurman in 1999 and sentenced him to death.
Hanson, 58, is currently housed in the U.S. Penitentiary in Pollock, Louisiana, serving a life sentence plus 107 years for a series of armed robberies he committed after the murders but was convicted of and sentenced for while the state case was ongoing. He has since exhausted his appeal opportunities in Oklahoma and is slated for execution by lethal injection on Dec. 15, pending a clemency hearing Nov. 9 where Gov. Kevin Stitt could grant him mercy.
Tulsa County District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler requested the AG’s assistance after receiving a formal notice in late September of the denial that cited a reason set forward in the U.S. Code. The DA’s Office provided the Tulsa World a copy of the letter from the Bureau of Prisons.
“(The law) authorizes the Bureau of Prisons to transfer a prisoner who is wanted by a State authority to that State authority’s custody if it is appropriate, suitable, and in the public’s best interest,” the letter reads in part. “The Designation and Sentence Computation Center … has denied the request for transfer, as it is not in the public’s best interest.”
Kunzweiler balked at the vague term and said in a news release that the decision reeked of politics. In the release last week, the DA said he was “outraged” and has demanded a greater explanation. “The crimes for which Hanson is serving time in federal custody were committed after his involvement in the murders of Mary Bowles and Jerald Thurman,” he wrote. “Of what reasonable purpose is there for him to remain in federal custody — at taxpayers’ expense — when he can and should be delivered to Oklahoma authorities for the rendition of the punishment he received here?”
Kunzweiler listed several state and federal agencies from which he has sought assistance in the matter, and a spokeswoman for Oklahoma Attorney General John O’Connor said O’Connor has reached out to a Bureau of Prisons regional director “to see if he will reconsider his refusal to transfer Hanson to Oklahoma.”
The bureau’s Office of Public Affairs declined to comment for this story, stating that “based on privacy, safety, and security reasons, we do not comment on inmate’s conditions of confinement, to include transfers or reasons for transfers.”
The Tulsa World has submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the bureau seeking an internal document that could clarify the conditions under which the decision was made.
Like the folks at the Tulsa World, I would like to hear more from the U.S. Bureau of Prisons about just why is has decided that it is “not in the public’s best interest” to allow a state to complete a seemingly lawful capital sentence. I am not an expert on prisoner transfer protocol, but I certainly think at least some greater transparency is wholly justified here.
UPDATE: I failed to see that Chris Geidner has been writing about this case on his Substack, Law Dork, including a new post with the latest breaking legal developments:
“Oklahoma wants the feds to transfer a man in federal prison to their custody so they can kill him“
“Breaking: Oklahoma sues the Biden administration in the state’s quest to kill John Hanson“