Four executions are scheduled in four states over four days this week. Here's what we know
Over the next four days, four inmates in four different states are scheduled to be put to death – a cluster that, while not abnormal, comes amid a national uptick in executions while President Donald Trump calls for the death penalty's expansion.
A cluster of executions is 'not that unusual,' according to Robert Dunham, director of the Death Penalty Policy Project. 'But it's become increasingly rare as use of the death penalty has diminished.'
Indeed, the number of executions each year remains far lower than its peak in 1999, when nearly 100 people were put to death nationwide. That figure steadily decreased until the Covid-19 pandemic, when it reached historic lows, Dunham said.
But executions are up in the first half of 2025 compared to recent years. In addition to this week's, two more are scheduled later in June. If all six proceed as planned, it would mark 25 executions this year to date, matching the total number of executions carried out in 2024, according to data from the Death Penalty Information Center. That would be the highest number of executions carried out through June since 2011.
One reason for the rise is the renewed interest in executions in states that have not carried them out for years, experts said. Arizona, Louisiana and Tennessee have all resumed executions in 2025 after hiatuses. South Carolina and Indiana did the same in 2024.
The states are acting independently. But their moves come as Trump has signaled a desire to see capital punishment used more often at the federal level, saying he wants to deter criminals and protect the American people. While his day one executive order, 'Restoring the Death Penalty and Protecting Public Safety,' does not apply to the states, experts said the message it sends could encourage state officials who want to align themselves with the president.
'If a state is inclined to conduct executions anyway, Trump's rhetoric would be the wind behind them pushing them to do that,' said Corinna Lain, a University of Richmond law professor and author of 'Secrets of the Killing State: The Untold Story of Lethal Injection.'
The executive order also has an overt connection to a case this week: an Oklahoma execution is moving forward because Attorney General Pam Bondi, citing Trump's executive order, approved a transfer of the inmate from federal custody to the state – a request the Biden administration previously denied.
CNN has reached out to the White House for comment.
Matt Wells, deputy director of Reprieve US, an organization that opposes the death penalty, called this a 'dark time in US capital punishment.' Aside from the resumption of executions in some states, he pointed to states' issues with lethal injection and the advent of alternative execution methods, like nitrogen gas, and the resumption of executions in states that have not put anyone to death in years.
'Yet through his executive order on the death penalty,' Wells said, 'President Trump has sent a strong signal to states to push forward with executions.'
Here's what we know about the four inmates facing execution this week:
Alabama inmate Gregory Hunt has been on death row for more than 30 years. On Tuesday, he is expected to be executed via nitrogen hypoxia.
Alabama became the first state to ever use the method in the execution of Kenneth Smith, which took about 15 minutes to complete. Hunt's execution would be the fifth by nitrogen hypoxia in the state, and the second execution by nitrogen hypoxia this year, according to a spokesperson for Gov. Kay Ivey's office.
Hunt – one of the 156 people on death row in the state – killed Karen Lane in the early hours of August 2, 1988, according to court documents. The two had been dating for about a month prior to her death.
Lane was found with 60 injuries to her body, including lacerations and bruises to her head, body and organs, documents say. She also had a dozen fractured ribs, a fractured breastbone and evidence suggested she had been sexually assaulted.
Hunt is representing himself in court, according to a spokesperson with the Alabama Attorney General's office.
Florida inmate Anthony Wainwright has been on death row for roughly 30 years for killing a woman after he and another man escaped from prison in 1994 in Newport, North Carolina.
The two escapees stole a green Cadillac and burglarized weapons from a home before driving to Lake City, Florida, according to court documents. While in Lake City, the pair stole another car because the Cadillac was starting to overheat, documents say.
The pair drove into a supermarket parking lot and spotted Carmen Gayheart, who was loading groceries into a Ford Bronco. They decided to take her car – first forcing her to get inside it at gunpoint – and drove to a wooded area where they 'raped, strangled, and executed' her with one of the stolen guns, court documents say.
CNN has reached out to an attorney for Wainwright for comment. Wainwright's co-conspirator died in 2023, according to The Florida Department of Corrections.
Wainwright is expected to be executed via lethal injection Tuesday.
Gayheart's sister, Maria David, who attended every day of Wainwright's original trial, said the victim was a devoted mother of two who was beautiful inside and out.
'She loved those kids like nothing else, devoted wife. She was going to be an incredible nurse had she been left to live for the rest of her life,' David said.
David, who also runs a Facebook page in her sister's honor, said she will be in attendance for Wainwright's execution, as will other family members.
'This is just going to be closure for the legal aspect of Carmen's case,' David said. 'It doesn't bring closure for me, and I don't think any member of my family, by any means, because we're always going to live with the loss of Carmen.'
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has signed seven death warrants in the first half of 2025, according to his office – if the two executions scheduled for June go forward, that would be just one short of the state's record of eight executions in a single year since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976.
John Hanson faces execution Thursday for the fatal shooting of Mary Bowles in August 1999, according to an Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals opinion outlining the case.
According to prosecutors, Hanson and his co-defendant, Victor Miller, carjacked and kidnapped Bowles at a Tulsa mall, then drove her to a 'dirt pit' outside the city. There, prosecutors say, Hanson's co-defendant shot the man who owned the pit, Jerald Thurman, and Hanson fatally shot the 77-year-old woman.
Hanson's attorneys contest this: They say there is evidence Miller was Bowles' true killer, having confessed to pulling the trigger while in prison. Additionally, Miller is now serving a life sentence after his death sentence was overturned – a glaring sentencing disparity given he is, according to Hanson's attorneys, more culpable than their client.
They also argue that federal law was misinterpreted to facilitate Hanson's execution.
While he has a death sentence in Oklahoma, Hanson has also been serving a federal life sentence for a robbery. Three years ago, Oklahoma officials asked the Bureau of Prisons to transfer Hanson to state custody so his execution could be carried out. The agency – then under the stewardship of the Biden administration – said no; it would not be in the 'public interest' because he hadn't completed his federal sentence.
Oklahoma officials made the request again earlier this year, three days after Trump took office. This time, the administration – specifically Attorney General Pam Bondi – said yes, court records show. The transfer, she found, would comply with the executive order Trump signed on his first day in office, 'Restoring the Death Penalty and Protecting Public Safety,' and promote 'state and federal cooperation on capital crimes.'
Hanson is scheduled to be put to death by lethal injection, a spokesperson for the Oklahoma Department of Corrections told CNN.
Bowles' family has voiced support for the execution to move forward. Her niece, Sara Parker Mooney, remembered her aunt, a lifelong Tulsa resident, as an active member of her community and a mentor to professional women: 'She was the matriarch of our family. She was truly beloved.'
'Mary's murder was indescribably difficult then, and it still is now,' she wrote. 'We have been worn out by the multiple trials, re-trials, and appeals. We find ourselves disappointed and angry with the machinations of the judicial system and the political aspects of the last years. We are ready to be done with this matter.'
Stephen Stanko faces execution Friday for the 2005 murder of Henry Lee Turner, though he also has a second death sentence for the murder of Laura Ling.
Stanko's execution warrant is tied to Turner's murder, because the inmate had exhausted his appeals in that case, the South Carolina Department of Corrections said in a notice announcing his execution date.
On April 7, 2005, Stanko murdered Ling, his girlfriend, the notice says. He also raped her daughter, who was at a minor at the time, and slit her throat – though she survived. Afterwards, Stanko went to Turner's home, where he shot and killed the 74-year-old before stealing his truck and fleeing. Stanko was arrested days later.
Henry Turner's son remembered his father as a 'helper,' who was willing to lend a hand to anyone, including the man who killed him. 'He was my best friend,' said Roger Turner.
While Roger supports Stanko's execution, he told CNN he had forgiven the inmate for murdering his father. But he wishes the execution had taken place sooner, lamenting the two-decade cycle of appeals that would periodically reignite interest in Stanko's case – and force him to revisit his father's killing time and again.
'Here it is, 20 years later, and I'm still reliving it. I'm still hearing the guy's name,' said Roger Turner. He intends to attend the execution.
Should it move ahead, Stanko will be executed by lethal injection, a spokesperson for the South Carolina Department of Corrections told CNN. South Carolina inmates can choose their method of execution, with the electric chair and the firing squad as the other available options.
CNN has reached out to Ling's daughter and Stanko's attorney for comment.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Boston Globe
16 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump charts new territory in bypassing Newsom to deploy National Guard
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump invoked a section of the US code that allows the president to bypass a governor's authority over the National Guard and call those troops into federal service when he considers it necessary to repel an invasion or suppress a rebellion, the law states. California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, has sharply criticized the move, saying state and local authorities have the situation under control and accusing Trump of attempting to create a 'spectacle.' Advertisement The directive, announced by the White House late Saturday, came after some protests against immigration raids turned violent, with protesters setting cars aflame and lighting fireworks, and law enforcement in tactical gear using tear gas and stun grenades. Trump claimed in his executive order that the unrest in Southern California was prohibiting the execution of immigration enforcement and therefore met the definition of a rebellion. Advertisement Legal experts said they expect Trump's executive order to draw legal challenges. On Sunday, Newsom asked the Trump administration to rescind his deployment of the National Guard, saying the administration had not followed proper legal procedure in sending them to the state. Trump said the National Guard troops would be used to 'temporarily' protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and 'other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations.' Goitein called Trump's exercise of the statute an 'untested' departure from its use by previous presidents. She said presidents have in the past invoked this section of federal law in conjunction with the Insurrection Act, which Trump did not. The Insurrection Act authorizes the president to deploy armed forces or the National Guard domestically to suppress armed rebellion, riots or other extreme circumstances. It allows US military personnel to perform law enforcement activities - such as making arrests and performing searches - generally prohibited by another law, the Posse Comitatus Act. The last time a president invoked this section of US code in tandem with the Insurrection Act was in 1992, during the riots that engulfed Los Angeles after the acquittal of police officers in the beating of Rodney King. The Insurrection Act has been invoked throughout US history to deal with riots and labor unrest, and to protect Black Americans from the Ku Klux Klan. Advertisement During his 2024 campaign, Trump and aides discussed invoking the Insurrection Act on his first day in office to quell anticipated protests, and he said at an Iowa rally that he would unilaterally send troops to Democratic-run cities to enforce order. 'You look at any Democrat-run state, and it's just not the same - it doesn't work,' Trump told the crowd, suggesting cities like New York and Los Angeles had severe crime problems. 'We cannot let it happen any longer. And one of the other things I'll do - because you're supposed to not be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in - the next time, I'm not waiting.' Trump's willingness to use the armed forces to put down protests has drawn fierce blowback from civil liberties groups and Democrats, who have said suppressing dissent with military force is a violation of the country's norms. 'President Trump's deployment of federalized National Guard troops in response to protests is unnecessary, inflammatory, and an abuse of power,' Hina Shamsi, director of the National Security Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. 'By taking this action, the Trump administration is putting Angelenos in danger, creating legal and ethical jeopardy for troops, and recklessly undermining our foundational democratic principle that the military should not police civilians.' Goitein said Trump's move to invoke only the federal service law might be calculated to try to avoid any political fallout from invoking the Insurrection Act, or it's merely a prelude to doing so. 'This is charting new ground here, to have a president try to uncouple these authorities,' Goitein said. 'There's a question here whether he is essentially trying to deploy the powers of the Insurrection Act without invoking it.' Advertisement Trump's move also was unusual in other ways, Goitein said. Domestic military deployments typically come at the request of a governor and in response to the collapse of law enforcement control or other serious threats. Local authorities in Los Angeles have not asked for such help. Goitein said the last time a president ordered the military to a state without a request was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators. Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck wrote on his website that invoking the Armed Services Act - and not the Insurrection Act - means the troops will be limited in what role they will be able to perform. 'Nothing that the President did Saturday night would, for instance, authorize these federalized National Guard troops to conduct their own immigration raids; make their own immigration arrests; or otherwise do anything other than, to quote the President's own memorandum, 'those military protective activities that the Secretary of Defense determines are reasonably necessary to ensure the protection and safety of Federal personnel and property,'' Vladeck wrote. Rachel E. VanLandingham, a former Air Force attorney and professor at the Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, echoed the point. Unless acting under federal orders from the president, National Guard units are state organizations overseen by governors. While under state control, Guard troops have broader law enforcement authorities, VanLandingham said. In this situation, the service members under federal control will have more restraints. 'But it can easily and quickly escalate to mortal and constitutional danger,' she said, if Trump decides to also invoke the Insurrection Act, which would give these Guard members and any active-duty troops who may be summoned to Los Angeles the authority to perform law enforcement duties. Advertisement During his first term as president, Trump suggested invoking the Insurrection Act to deal with protests over the 2020 police killing of George Floyd, but his defense secretary at the time, Mark T. Esper, objected and it never came to fruition. Trump asked the governors of a handful of states to send troops to D.C. in response to the Floyd protests there. Some governors agreed, but others turned aside the request. National Guard members were present outside the White House in June of that year during a violent crackdown on protesters demonstrating against police brutality. That same day, D.C. National Guard helicopters overseen by Trump's Army secretary then, Ryan McCarthy, roared over protesters in downtown Washington, flying as low as 55 feet. An Army review later determined it was a misuse of helicopters specifically designated for medical evacuations. Trump also generated controversy when he sent tactical teams of border officers to Portland, Oregon, and to Seattle to confront protesters there.


Fox News
16 minutes ago
- Fox News
JONATHAN TURLEY: Democrats' rabid anti-ICE resistance in LA against Trump could backfire
California Gov. Gavin Newsom was in his element over the weekend. After scenes of burning cars and attacks on ICE personnel, Newsom declared that this was all "an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act." No, he was not speaking of the attacks on law enforcement or property. He was referring to President Donald Trump's call to deploy the National Guard to protect federal officers. Newsom is planning to challenge the deployment as cities like Glendale are cancelling contracts to house detainees and reaffirming that local police will not assist the federal government. Trump has the authority under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code to deploy the National Guard if the governor is "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." The administration is saying that that is precisely what is unfolding in California, where mobs have attacked vehicles and trapped federal personnel. Most critics are challenging the deployment on policy grounds, arguing that it is an unnecessary escalation. However, even critics like Berkeley Law Dean Erwin have admitted that "Unfortunately, President Trump likely has the legal authority to do this." There is a fair debate over whether this is needed at this time, but the president is allowed to reach a different conclusion. Trump wants the violence to end now as opposed to escalating as it did in the Rodney King riots or the later riots after George Floyd's death, causing billions in property damage and many deaths. Courts will be asked to halt the order because it did not technically go through Newsom to formally call out the National Guard. Section 12406 grants Trump the authority to call out the Guard and employs a mandatory term for governors, who "shall" issue the president's order. In the memo, Trump also instructed federal officials "to coordinate with the Governors of the States and the National Guard Bureau." Newsom is clearly refusing to issue the orders or coordinate the deployment. Even if such challenges are successful, Trump can clearly flood the zone with federal authority. Indeed, the obstruction could escalate the matter further, prompting Trump to consider using the Insurrection Act, which would allow troops to participate directly in civilian law enforcement. In 1958, President Eisenhower used the Insurrection Act to deploy troops to Arkansas to enforce the Supreme Court's orders ending racial segregation in schools. The Trump administration has already claimed that these riots "constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States." In support of such a claim, the administration could cite many of the Democratic leaders now denouncing the claim. After January 6th, liberal politicians and professors insisted that the riot was an "insurrection" and claimed that Trump and dozens of Republicans could be removed from ballots under the 14th Amendment. Liberal professors insisted that Trump's use of the word "fight" on January 6th and his questioning of the results of an election did qualify as an insurrection. They argued that you merely need to show "an assemblage of people" who are "resisting the law" and "using force or intimidation" for "a public purpose." The involvement of inciteful language from politicians only reinforced these claims. Sound familiar? Democrats are using this order to deflect from their own escalation of the tensions over the past several months. From Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz calling ICE officers "Gestapo" to others calling them "fascists" and "Nazis," Democratic leaders have been ignoring objections that they are fueling the violent and criminal responses. It did not matter. It was viewed as good politics. While Newsom and figures like New Jersey Democrat Sen. Cory Booker have called these "peaceful" protests, we have also seen rocks, and Molotov cocktails thrown at police as vehicles were torched. Police have had to use tear gas, "flash bang" grenades, and rubber bullets to quell these "peaceful" protesters. There appears little interest in deescalation on either side. For the Trump administration, images of rioters riding in celebration around burning cars with Mexican flags are only likely to reinforce the support of the majority of Americans for the enforcement of immigration laws. For Democrats, they have gone "all in" on opposing ICE and these enforcement operations despite support from roughly 30 percent of the public. Some Democrats are now playing directly to the mob. A Los Angeles City Council member, Eunisses Hernandez, reportedly urged anti-law enforcement protesters to "escalate" their tactics against ICE officers: "They know how quickly we mobilize, that's why they're changing tactics. Because community defense works and our resistance has slowed them down before… and if they're escalating their tactics, then so are we. When they show up, we gotta show up even stronger." So, L.A. officials are maintaining the sanctuary status of the city, barring the cooperation of local police, and calling on citizens to escalate their resistance after a weekend of violent attacks. Others have posted the locations of ICE facilities to allow better tracking of operations, while cities like Glendale are closing facilities. In Washington, House Speaker Hakim Jeffries has pledged to unmask the identities of individual ICE officers who have been covering their faces to protect themselves and their families from growing threats. While Democrats have not succeeded in making a convincing political case for opposing immigration enforcement, they may be making a stronger case for federal deployment in increasingly hostile blue cities.


Fox News
16 minutes ago
- Fox News
Liberals, anti-Trump figures bash ABC for suspending Terry Moran over anti-Trump social media rant
Liberal pundits and anti-Trump figures slammed ABC News for suspending longtime correspondent Terry Moran after he ranted on social media about President Donald Trump and Stephen Miller. "They can clutch their pearls and act mad but this is spot on from Moran," Tommy Vietor, a co-host of "Pod Save America," wrote, reacting to Moran's deleted social media post that referred to both men as "world-class hater[s]." Moran called out Trump and Miller on social media early Sunday morning and proceeded to delete the post. An ABC News spokesperson told Fox News Digital in a statement that Moran was suspended, saying, "The post does not reflect the views of ABC News and violated our standards." "MAGA, I thought you all defended free speech and the First Amendment, right? Why are you so upset about Terry Moran's comments? Stop being such snowflakes, right? Stop looking for safe spaces. Man up," posted left-wing writer Wajahat Ali, who edits "The Left Hook" Substack. Joe Walsh, a former GOP congressman who joined the Democratic Party this year, said, "shame on you, @abcnews." "Way to NOT stand up for a free press," he added. In another post on X, Walsh called the suspension of Moran "utter b-------," and said, "You're the free press. You don't do what the authoritarian in the White House tells you to do. Thank you @TerryMoran for having the courage to speak the truth." "What Moran reported was demonstrable fact. Indisputable fact. Yet they suspend him. This is the advantage that Trump and his ilk have. They are so beyond the moral pale, so beyond normality, that it is considered impolite, impolitic, or intemperate to describe them as they are," Lincoln Project co-founder George Conway wrote. Medhi Hasan, a former MSNBC host who started his own publication, Zeteo, directed his criticism at the Trump officials who defended the president and Miller. "Snowflakes. Pretend free speech warriors. Getting journalists suspended and calling for their firing. Hypocrites," Hasan wrote. Hasan also posted on Bluesky that Moran's suspension was "'ironic given Moran went out of his way to not embarrass Trump over the president's delusion about the doctored MS13 photo, repeatedly saying 'let's agree to disagree' and 'let's move on' but they still got him suspended. You can't appease these people ever." Moran interviewed Trump about his first 100 days in office, during which Trump repeatedly called out Moran and ABC News. Trump accused Moran of "not being very nice" during an exchange about the deportation of illegal immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia. "They're giving you the big break of a lifetime," Trump told Moran. "You're doing the interview, I picked you because, frankly, I never heard of you, but that's OK. I picked you, Terry, but you're not being very nice." Far-left former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann re-posted Moran's attacks on Miller and Trump, and called out Bob Iger, the CEO of Disney, which owns ABC News. "Another coward named @RobertIger responded by letting ABC News suspend Terry indefinitely for telling the truth," Olbermann wrote. "I have copied Terry's words here and I encourage everybody, journalists especially, to do the same, or cut and paste what I've written, and put it out under your name." Others also called on their followers to share Moran's deleted post. Ron Filipkowski, editor-in-chief of MeidasTouch, a liberal website, said Moran's suspension was a product of corporate journalism. "Independent journalism is when you can write what Terry Moran wrote without getting in trouble. Corporate journalism is when you can't," he wrote. ABC News did not immediately return a request for comment. Moran's suspension for airing his thoughts comes as public trust in the media continues to steadily erode. A Gallup survey last year showed a record-low 31 percent of Americans expressed at least a "fair amount" of trust in the media to accurately report the news. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt responded to Moran's post on X, Sunday, calling it "unhinged and unacceptable."