Back from the road but prepping for a fairly contentious trial, a quick rouundup will follow during the next break from prepping. Until then, two Ninth Circuit cases noted, both in favorem vitae, Comer v. Schriro and Frierson v. Woodford. One ugly loss is noted as well.

In Comer v. Schriro the panel holds that Comer is competent to waive his right to habeas review but his motions to dismiss his own appeal and be executed because his sentence of death violates the Eighth Amendment. The substantive grounds for the grant of relief is that "he was sentenced to death while nearly naked, bleeding, shackled, and exhausted."

In Frierson v. Woodford a rather routine grant of relief is noted on the failure investigate and present mitigation evidence at the penalty phase and failing to review juvenile court records and to challenge a key mitigation witness's assertion of his privilege against self-incrimination at the penalty trial.

The lethal injection in litigation surrounding Clarence Hill is about to reach another crucial turning point, Hill v. McDonough. The Eleventh Circuit denies relief on a narrow ground, that his petition should have been brought earlier. Hill, who is scheduled to be killed by Florida on the twentieth, was also denied a stay. The Court in Hill earlier addressed the issue of question of how a lethal injection challenge can be brought but not when, especially in light of the dueling concerns of undue delay vs. ripeness.