Federal judge refuses to interfere with South Carolina’s clemency process
I flagged in this recent post the notable request by a condemned South Carolina inmate for a federal judge to take away the clemency power from the SC Governor. Richard Moore argued that the Gov could not fairly consider his request to commute his death sentence to a life sentence because the Gov had been Attorney General overseeing efforts to uphold Moore’s death sentence. Yesterday, as detailed in this local press piece, this request was rebuffed:
A federal judge has ruled that Gov. Henry McMaster will retain his right to be the final judge of clemency for a death row inmate even though he once claimed to have no intention of doing so. “The Court is confident… Governor McMaster will give full, thoughtful, and careful consideration to any clemency petition filed by Moore, giving both comprehensive and individualized attention to the unique circumstances of his case,” wrote U.S. District Court Judge Mary Geiger Lewis in a ruling issued Monday…..
Moore, 59, is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection on Nov. 1. He was sentenced to death in 2001 for shooting and killing James Mahoney, a Spartanburg County store clerk, during an armed robbery two years prior….
Legal precedent did not support removing a governor’s power to grant clemency, contained in the state constitution, just because he had served as an attorney general, Lewis wrote…. Lewis’ ruling came after she took the extraordinary step of requesting the governor to submit an affidavit to the court swearing that he would carefully consider Moore’s clemency request.
In a carefully worded affidavit, McMaster wrote that “understanding that executive clemency is purely a matter of mercy and grace within the exclusive authority and solemn discretion bestowed up the Governor alone… it is and has been my intention and commitment to take care to understand the issues presented, including those from my review and consideration of applications, petition, and request for clemency presented to me by or on behalf of a condemned inmate.”
Moore’s lawyers told The State that they intend to appeal the decision to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The full 10-page ruling in Moore v. McMaster, No. 3:24-5580-MGL (DSC Oct. 21, 2024) (available for download below) makes for an interesting read. Here are a few notable passages:
As an initial matter, Moore misconstrues Woodard as holding the minimal procedural safeguards guaranteed by the Due Process Clause include notice and an opportunity to be heard before an impartial decision-maker. This standard is unsupported by Woodard, which merely requires the Court to determine whether a state’s clemency procedures are arbitrary or based upon whim. 523 U.S. at 289 (“[S]ome minimal procedural safeguards apply to clemency proceedings. Judicial intervention might, for example, be warranted in the face of a scheme whereby a state official flipped a coin to determine whether to grant clemency, or in a case where the State arbitrarily denied a prisoner any access to its clemency process.”)….
Even if the Court were to employ the standard set forth by Moore, however, and hold the minimal procedural safeguards guaranteed by the Due Process Clause include Moore “having his clemency application considered and evaluated by an impartial, open-minded, and unbiased decision-maker[,]” Moore’s Motion at 1, the Court is confident — based on the full context of Governor McMaster’s public statement and his declaration — Governor McMaster will give full, thoughtful, and careful consideration to any clemency petition filed by Moore, giving both comprehensive and individualized attention to the unique circumstances of his case.