The Supreme Court of the United States has nullified this Wednesday the suspension of the execution of Christa Pike, the only woman on death row in the state of Tennessee, convicted of the first-degree murder of a fellow student in 1996, when she was 19 years old.
"The request to nullify the suspension of the death penalty execution is granted," states the resolution of the high court, which "nullifies" the previous order of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had temporarily halted the execution of Christa Pike.
In 1996, Pike was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the 1995 death of Collen Slemmer, a classmate. According to the sentence, she and her then-boyfriend, Tadaryl Shipp -- sentenced to life in prison -- subjected the victim to torture, stabbed her, and beat her to death.
Pike, who never denied her involvement in the crime, became at 21 the youngest person on death row. In her last unsuccessful attempt to obtain clemency, she emphasized the mental health issues she was suffering at the time, stating that it took her "many years" to understand the magnitude of what she had done.
The prosecution argued that Pike, driven by fear that Slemmer would try to start a relationship with her partner, attacked her with a cutter and beat her with a large piece of asphalt. Shipp admitted to having carved a pentagram, a star-shaped symbol linked to satanism, on the victim's body.
Dissent from the three judges appointed by Democrats
The resolution has faced opposition from Judge Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Ketanji Jackson and Elena Kagan, the three only justices of the Supreme Court appointed by Democratic administrations.
In her writing, reviewed by Europa Press, Sotomayor argues that the ruling "paves the way for the State to execute Pike before her still pending legal challenges against her conviction can be adequately considered."
"Pike had previously requested a state post-conviction review, partly arguing ineffective legal assistance during the trial; she argued that her lawyer did not present adequate mitigating evidence during the sentencing phase that would have highlighted the severe sexual abuse she suffered as a minor," she recalled.
In this regard, he added that "in a hearing on said claim, according to Pike, the state (of Tennessee) repeatedly accused her of being a 'pathological liar' and questioned the experiences of sexual violence that she had suffered."
With the appeals against the conviction and the habeas corpus rejected, "the state recently stated during a evidentiary hearing that it 'does not question the terrible things' that Pike 'suffered' when she was a minor," emphasized the judge, who indicated that the convicted "has requested to reopen the ruling that denied the federal habeas corpus petition" claiming that "the state's statement implies, in practice, the acknowledgment that it engaged in unfair procedural maneuvers during the post-conviction proceedings, 'contaminating' them thus."
In light of this new attempt, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit chose to stay Pike's execution to study whether the allegations of sexual abuse suffered in childhood were thoroughly examined in the trial that concluded with the death penalty, as the defense argues that, had they been fully considered, the death penalty would not have been imposed.
However, "the Supreme Court's decision to lift said stay interferes with the usual administrative management of the Sixth Circuit Court in a capital case and unnecessarily prevents that court from properly examining Pike's allegation," Sotomayor noted in her dissenting opinion.
"Worse still, the Court grants such an extraordinary measure solely to allow the State to execute Pike before the litigation regarding her conviction has followed its natural course in the lower courts," she criticized, asserting that she finds "no reason to abruptly interrupt the ordinary appellate review process, especially in light of the serious consequences that a wrongful decision would have."
Along the same lines, Sotomayor insisted that, "in capital cases, 'the acknowledgment of our own fallibility and respect for the judgment of an appellate court' demand caution before 'acting irreparably'." "Today, the Court, as it has done too often lately, chooses to overlook that principle precisely when it matters most," she lamented.