Mississippi prisoner Richard Jordan takes to YouTube to plead for clemency before execution
In an effort to seek clemency for convicted murderer Richard Gerald Jordan, the Mississippi Office of Capital Post-Conviction Counsel released a video in which Jordan shares his story and asks the state not to execute him.
The 79-year-old is scheduled to be executed on June 25. The U.S. Supreme Court will discuss on June 18 whether to grant Jordan an emergency stay of execution, and the Mississippi Southern District of U.S. District Court is expected to rule on whether to halt the execution at least temporarily as the court considers Jordan's objections to the state's three-drug method.
Jordan has been on death row in Mississippi since 1977 for the kidnapping and murder of Edwina Marter, a Gulfport bank executive's wife. He also tried to collect a ransom after Marter was already dead.
In the video, Jordan talks about his childhood and military service, saying he was a model citizen until he returned from Vietnam after serving three tours there during the war.
He believes and experts shared in the video that Jordan likely suffered post-traumatic stress disorder from his time in Vietnam at the time he killed Marter.
Jordan's brother Houston Jordan and sister Nordeen Jones talk about their older brother "Gerald" as a kind person and a role model for his younger siblings.
The Jordans, they said, were a God-fearing family and spent a lot of time at church.
"From the time we were small up, we went to church every Sunday morning, Sunday night and Wednesday night," Houston Jordan said. "We were quite active in the church."
Others, including former schoolmates, ministers and a retired corrections officer, talk about Richard Jordan's willingness to help others.
In the video, Richard Jordan is not asking the state to set him free. He admits his crime was wrong and has apologized for what he did. He is asking the state to commute his sentence to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Jordan's attorneys said at a hearing held Saturday at the Thad Cochran Federal Courthouse in Jackson that the state's preferred method of execution is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment, which is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment.
Jordan also contends the execution method violates the Fourteenth Amendment, which speaks to due process and equal protection under the law.
U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate asked the state and Jordan if they would be amenable to halting the execution if Jordan is deemed conscious after the first drug is administered and before the second has begun so the federal court could decide what should happen next, since it is not clear in Mississippi code what should happen if the first drug, a sedative, fails.
Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch replied on Monday that there is a protocol. If the first consciousness test fails, Department of Corrections Commissioner Burl Cain can restart the process. If it fails a second time, the process would be halted until the state could decide what to do next.
Wingate has not yet ruled on the matter.
Lici Beveridge is a reporter for the Hattiesburg American and Clarion Ledger. Contact her at lbeveridge@gannett.com. Follow her on X @licibev or Facebook at facebook.com/licibeveridge
This article originally appeared on Mississippi Clarion Ledger: Richard Jordan pleads for clemency ahead of execution in Mississippi
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
a day ago
- Time Magazine
SCOTUS' Blow to Trans Rights Is History Repeating Itself
On June 18th, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in United States. v. Skrmetti, a case that will have far-reaching effects on the lives of transgender Americans—and the principles of equal protection for all Americans. In Skrmetti, the parents of three transgender children sued the state of Tennessee for a law that nullified their children's rights to continue gender-affirming care. The law, which took effect on July 1, 2023, forbids treatment such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy—but only for transgender children. This, as a result, created two classes of people and two kinds of law: cis and trans. What Tennessee had done, said ACLU attorney Chase Strangio, who became the first openly transgender person to argue before the Court, is 'impose a blunderbuss ban overriding the very careful judgment of parents who love and care for their children and the doctors who have recommended the treatment.' In deciding against parental rights and against the advice of medical experts, the Court has put the health and well-being of the plaintiffs at risk. In the same text, the decision also has diminished the right to equal protection—the right to be who we are, and the right to be let alone. What is most striking about this decision, however, is just how much history repeats itself. Skrmetti carries echoes of the Supreme Court's 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, in which an Atlanta bartender, Michael Hardwick, sued for his right to sexual privacy. On August 3, 1982, an Atlanta police officer arrested Hardwick and a partner for oral sex conducted inside Hardwick's apartment, behind closed doors. Georgia deemed that act criminal and threatened a possible 20-year prison sentence. The Supreme Court ruled for the state on June 30, 1986, when it found that queer people had no right to sexual privacy, and that 'homosexual sodomy' could be made illegal. Both Hardwick and Skrmetti revolve around the idea of intermediate scrutiny—that to infringe upon the privacy and liberty of a person, as well as their right to equal protection, the state had to come up with some satisfactory reason why it had an interest. In Hardwick, American legal scholar Laurence Tribe argued for the Court on March 31, 1986, that the state should have to explain how and why it would be permissible to discriminate against homosexual sodomy. In Skrmetti's dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor reasoned that the case might demand intermediate scrutiny, so that 'we don't make personal judgements'—and so the Court, if it permitted the Tennessee law to survive, could minimize the suffering of anyone who might be legally barred from treatment. It's impossible to gauge how many people died as a result of Hardwick, as they refused to seek treatment for HIV in order to avoid discrimination. Michael Hardwick himself died of complications of HIV infection in 1991, a cause left off his death certificate to preserve what little privacy remained for his family. It wasn't until 2003 when the Supreme Court overturned itself in the Lawrence v. Texas decision that it recognized its decision in Hardwick was 'wrong the day it was decided.' Within a dozen years, the Court would find same-sex marriage to be a constitutional right in 2015's Obergefell v. Hodges. It seems that this will also be true for the United States. v. Skrmetti. The Supreme Court's June 18 decision held deeply disappointing and ill-informed opinions about the lives of transgender people. 'Transgender status is not 'immutable,'' wrote Justice Samuel Alito, 'and as a result, persons can and do move into and out of the class.' His opinion ignores the reasons a very slim minority of trans people may decide to conform to a cis identity—because it can ensure their safety in hostile places. Alito also suggested that 'transgender individuals have not been subjected to a history of discrimination,' which shows an astonishing lack of knowledge of queer lives and queer history, or perhaps the lack of concern for it. Justice Amy Coney Barrett went further. She found no reason to treat transgender people as a class subjected to discrimination, and unironically, wrote within her concurrence the very reasons that transgender people have had to fight for basic civil rights: because they have ''been subjected to discrimination'' and because they are ''a minority or politically powerless.'' In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote eloquently about the lives of transgender citizens, whose need to access treatment 'is not a matter of mere cosmetic preference,' as she noted. 'To the contrary, access to care can be a question of life or death.' The court failed precedent by not applying intermediate scrutiny, she writes—and in doing so, the Court 'does irrevocable damage to the Equal Protection Clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight,' and brings 'untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them.' As in Bowers v. Hardwick, Sotomayor's dissent will hopefully be the inspiration for cases that will challenge and one day, perhaps, overturn Skrmetti. As Constitutional scholar Anthony Michael Kreis posted to social media in the aftermath of the decision, 'May Skrmetti be the Bowers of our time.' That said, until it is overturned, Skrmetti might grant 'open season' on trans rights. It places transgender children in states with such laws at risk of persecution and suicide. And while transgender adults now have more autonomy to make private decisions for themselves, the Skrmetti decision will no doubt encourage some states to try to ban gender-affirming care for anyone altogether. Skrmetti will further erode the rights to privacy and liberty already weakened by the decision three years ago to overturn Roe v. Wade. It bodes ill for the very ideas we hold to be fundamental. It is another in a series of decisions that diminishes the Constitution—an ode to liberty—to a grab bag of conflicting positions and murky language, ripe to be exploited. During its next term, the Court will hear a new case that contemplates queer rights, one that would legalize conversion therapy nationwide. That would put even more queer people at risk of psychological and physical cruelty, even in places where they now have legal protection. Queer people shouldn't be denied the protection of the Constitution because of their identity, but that is the condition the Supreme Court has chosen to leave untreated. As has been the case throughout so much of our history, queer people remain at risk, and on guard.
Newsweek
2 days ago
- Newsweek
The Supreme Court Rightly Revives Police Responsibility for Wrong House Raids
Let's hope only a small number of us think it's OK for squads of heavily armed federal agents to break down our doors, throw in some flash bangs, and then throw us and our children to the ground—only to realize they are in the wrong house. And if it's not OK, the victims of this sort of nightmare should be paid for the damage to their homes and the injuries they suffered. Yet, last year, in the case of Hilliard Toi Cliatt, his partner Curtrina Martin, and her 7-year-old son, an Atlanta-based federal appeals court said the victims were powerless to do anything about it. In a timely message to federal law enforcement, the Supreme Court has unanimously overturned that court, allowing the claim for damages to proceed. The U.S. Supreme Court is seen at dusk on Jan. 18, 2025, in Washington, D.C. The U.S. Supreme Court is seen at dusk on Jan. 18, 2025, in Washington, for allowing the lawsuit isn't about demonizing the police. When some activists did demonize them following the murder of George Floyd, the police retreat left us with dirty, dangerous, and declining cities, bolstering Donald Trump's case to reclaim the presidency. Now Trump is showing us the worst of the contrary view—shoot first, and—if anyone asks questions later—shoot them too. Trump is a consequence of the perceived lawlessness of the left—lawlessness against the police—lawlessness regarding immigration. Trump embodies right wing lawlessness—judges arrested, a senator assaulted, court orders ignored, corruption rampant. None of these national mood swings likely make sense to Curtrina Martin, her partner, and her son. They simply wanted to live in peace and to punish those who shattered it. Long ago, they would have been powerless. A federal statute specifically barred lawsuits against the police for the injuries they might inflict. But in 1973, Herbert Giglotto and his wife awoke to find 15 plain-clothed federal agents in their bedroom. They tied Giglotto up, held a gun to his head, and ransacked his house. Realizing they were in the wrong house, the agents left. Nearby, 30 minutes later, agents made the same mistake again bursting in on an innocent family and holding them at gunpoint. This seemed intolerable to Congress, so the next year it amended the Federal Tort Claims Act to allow victims to the federal government when law enforcement agents abused private citizens with things like assaults and false arrests. That should have settled things. So why did the appeals court block the Martin lawsuit? It's complicated, but let's just say that this law is a tangle of rules and exceptions, and for the past 50 years courts have eroded victims' rights to the point where almost all lawsuits against federal agents fail. Most of the time, courts hold that officers were exercising permissible "discretion" while inflicting injuries, and, the lower court in Martin used the novel idea that the supremacy of federal law over state law neutered the 1974 law's provision exposing law enforcement agents to the same liability a private citizen would have faced under local law. Yet the heart of the rulings seems to have been the same wild pendulum swings we see in society as a whole when it comes to law enforcement. When Congress changed the law in 1974, America was still reeling from the Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. assassinations, the Kent State killings, and the 1968 "police riot" in Chicago. Support for the police was at an all-time low and crime shot up. During the two Reagan terms, the two Bush presidencies, and during Trump term one, America swung back toward lionizing rather than criticizing the police, with unconditional support for the police peaking after 9/11 and only declining again 20 years later with the George Floyd murder and the outcry that followed it. Perhaps this time, with a unanimous ruling from the Supreme Court, the judiciary can help American justice find a third way. The Martin case isn't over. The High Court sent it back to the lower court to consider the part of the law that blocks lawsuits challenging discretionary decisions that implicate public policy. If the court rejects the silly idea that a wrong house raid is the product of a public policy judgment call, common sense may prevail in lawsuits against federal law enforcement—righteous police will be protected and rogue police will be accountable. Thomas G. Moukawsher is a former Connecticut complex litigation judge and a former co-chair of the American Bar Association Committee on Employee Benefits. He is the author of the book, The Common Flaw: Needless Complexity in the Courts and 50 Ways to Reduce It. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
2 days ago
Federal judge calls on NASCAR, teams to settle bitter antitrust battle
CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- A federal judge urged NASCAR and two of its teams, including one owned by retired NBA great Michael Jordan, to settle their increasingly acrimonious legal fight that spilled over into tense arguments during a hearing on Tuesday. U.S. District Judge Kenneth Bell of the Western District of North Carolina grilled both NASCAR and the teams — 23XI Racing, which is owned by Jordan and three-time Daytona 500 winner Denny Hamlin, and Front Row Motorsports, owned by entrepreneur Bob Jenkins — on what they hoped to accomplish in the antitrust battle that has loomed over the stock car series for months. 'It's hard to picture a winner if this goes to the mat — or to the flag — in this case,' Bell said. 'It scares me to death to think about what all this is costing.' 23XI and Front Row were the only two organizations that refused to sign a take-it-or-leave-it offer from NASCAR last September on a new charter agreement. Charters are NASCAR's version of a franchise model, with each charter guaranteeing entry to the lucrative Cup Series races and a stable revenue stream; 13 other teams signed the agreements last fall, with some contending they had little choice. The nearly two-hour hearing was on the teams' request to toss out NASCAR's countersuit, which accuses Jordan business manager Curtis Polk of 'willfully' violating antitrust laws by orchestrating anticompetitive collective conduct in negotiations. NASCAR said it learned in discovery that Polk in messages among the 15 teams tried to form a 'cartel' type operation that would include threats of boycotting races and a refusal to individually negotiate. One of NASCAR's attorneys even cited a Benjamin Franklin quote Polk allegedly sent to the 15 organizations that read: 'We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." Jeffrey Kessler, an attorney representing the teams, was angered by the revelation in open court, contending it is privileged information only revealed in discovery. Kessler also argued none of NASCAR's claims in the countersuit prove anything illegal was done by Polk or the Race Team Alliance during the charter negotiation process. 'NASCAR knows it has no defense to the monopolization case so they have come up with this claim about joint negotiations, which they agreed to, never objected to, and now suddenly it's an antitrust violation,' Kessler said outside court. 'It makes absolutely no sense. It's not going to help them deflect from the monopolizing they have done in this market and the harm they have inflicted.' He added that 'the attacks' on Polk were "false, unfounded and frankly beneath the dignity of my adversary to even make those type of comments, which he should know better about.' NASCAR attorneys said Polk improperly tried to pressure all 15 teams that comprise the RTA to stand together collectively in negotiations and encouraged boycotting qualifying races for the 2024 Daytona 500. NASCAR, they said, took the threat seriously because the teams had previously boycotted a scheduled meeting with series executives. 'NASCAR knew the next step was they could boycott a race, which was a threat they had to take seriously,' attorney Lawrence Buterman said on behalf of NASCAR. Kessler said outside court the two teams are open to settlement talks, but noted NASCAR has said it will not renegotiate the charters. NASCAR's attorneys declined to comment after the hearing. Bell did not indicate when he'd rule, other than saying he would decide quickly. Kessler said he would file an appeal by the end of the week after a three-judge federal appellate panel dismissed a preliminary injunction that required NASCAR to recognize 23XI and Front Row as chartered teams while the court fight is being resolved. Kessler wants the issue heard by the full appellate court. The injunction has no bearing on the merits of the case, which is scheduled to go to trial in December. The earliest NASCAR can treat the teams as unchartered is one week after the deadline to appeal, provided there is no pending appeal or whenever the appeals process has been exhausted. There are 36 chartered cars for the 40-car field each week. If 23XI and Front Row are not recognized as chartered, their six cars would have to compete as 'open' teams — which means they'd have to qualify on speed each week to make the race and they would receive a fraction of the money guaranteed for chartered teams. Some of the arguments Tuesday centered on Jonathan Marshall, the executive director of the RTA. NASCAR has demanded text messages and emails from Marshall and says it has received roughly 100 texts and over 55,000 pages of emails. NASCAR wants all texts between Marshall and 55 people from 2020 through 2024 that contain specific search terms. Attorneys for the RTA said that covers more than 3,000 texts, some of which are privileged, and some that have been 'deleted to save storage or he didn't need them anymore.' That issue is set to be heard during a hearing next Tuesday before Bell.
