ROGERS WARRANT: Postconviction motion filed
Glen Rogers’ execution is scheduled for May 15 at 6:00 p.m. Here’s the latest on the litigation pending ahead of the scheduled execution.
Glen Rogers’ execution is scheduled for May 15 at 6:00 p.m. Here’s the latest on the litigation pending ahead of the scheduled execution.
Rogers’ Postconviction Motion
On Sunday, Rogers filed a successive motion for postconviction relief raising three claims:
In this claim, Rogers argues that he should be entitled to appointment of new counsel because his current counsel has a conflict and is “unable to ethically raise the claims that Rogers wants to pursue.” Rogers requests “a stay of his proceedings, and the appointment of conflict-free private counsel.”
In this claim, Rogers argues that he is entitled to a new penalty phase based on newly discovered evidence of mitigation in his case, including “horrific child sexual abuse, which also involved human trafficking” and being “‘pimped out’ for money by his older brother and other predators in his community.” The motion refers to the currently pending legislation related to capital human trafficking as a basis for the claim.
In this claim, Rogers argues that the State’s use of its lethal injection protocol will cause him “needless pain and suffering due to his diagnosis of Porphyria.”
The full Motion can be downloaded here.
State’s Response
Yesterday, the State filed its response to Rogers’ motion arguing that the motion should be summarily denied.
On the first issue, the State argues that the Court should reaffirm its prior oral ruling at a hearing just after the warrant was signed denying Rogers’ current counsel’s request to withdraw.
On Rogers’ second claim, the State argues that the evidence of Rogers’ child abuse is not newly discovered and Rogers “raised a virtually identical claim . . . in his third successive motion for postconviction relief filed on August 24, 2020.” The State argues that the pending legislation is “only . . . proposed” and “carries no force of law” to substantiate a claim.
On Rogers’ third claim, the State argues that Rogers delayed raising the claim because he’s had the diagnosis for years. Note this is a common catch-22 for prisoners under death warrant because these claims would not be ripe for review until the death warrant is signed. On the merits, the State argues that “Rogers has not demonstrated any substantial and imminent risk that is sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering” to justify relief.
The full Response can be downloaded here.
Order Denying Motion to Withdraw
Related to the first issue in Rogers’ motion, yesterday afternoon, the Court entered a written Order denying Rogers’ attorneys’ motion to withdraw.
The Order memorializes the Court’s oral ruling at a hearing held on April 17.
TFDP Prior Coverage of the Rogers Warrant
My thoughts are with everyone involved in the warrant- and execution-related process.