Louisiana Supreme Court Unanimously Sides with Two Death-Sentenced Prisoners Targeted with Premature Execution Warrants

When Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry and Attorney General Liz Murrill took office in January 2024, they moved aggres­sive­ly to restart exe­cu­tions in the state. Gov. Landry signed bills that autho­rized nitro­gen suf­fo­ca­tion and elec­tro­cu­tion as exe­cu­tion meth­ods, increased his own pow­er over the state cap­i­tal defense sys­tem, and lim­it­ed post-con­vic­tion appeals, while AG Murrill moved to take over cap­i­tal appeal chal­lenges from local dis­trict attor­neys. In March 2025, the state con­duct­ed its first exe­cu­tion in 15 years.

And yet, Gov. Landry and AG Murrill’s oth­er efforts to put pris­on­ers to death have floun­dered in the courts, which have found that the state wrong­ful­ly sought exe­cu­tion war­rants before the pris­on­ers exhaust­ed their post-con­vic­tion appeals. This month, the Louisiana Supreme Court unan­i­mous­ly ruled in favor of two pris­on­ers — Marcus Reed and Larry Roy — reject­ing the state’s attempts to dis­miss their appeals and set their exe­cu­tion dates. The court reject­ed the argu­ment that delays in the appeals were inher­ent­ly prej­u­di­cial to the state, in the face of evi­dence that the state itself was part­ly respon­si­ble for those delays.

Mr. Reed, Mr. Roy, and anoth­er pris­on­er, Darrell Draughn, were among the first peo­ple tar­get­ed with exe­cu­tion war­rants in ear­ly 2025, after the state final­ized its nitro­gen suf­fo­ca­tion pro­to­col. However, courts quick­ly recalled all three war­rants when defense attor­neys object­ed that the men had not com­plet­ed their post-con­vic­tion appeals. These appeals are an essen­tial com­po­nent of due process in a cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment sys­tem, as they are a prisoner’s first oppor­tu­ni­ty to raise con­sti­tu­tion­al claims relat­ed to evi­dence out­side the tri­al record, such as pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al mis­con­duct or the inef­fec­tive assis­tance of tri­al coun­sel. It would be ​“unheard of in both this state and the nation” for a pris­on­er to ​“be pushed towards an exe­cu­tion with­out any court hear­ing his state post-con­vic­tion” claims, Mr. Draughn’s attor­neys argued.

After the war­rants were recalled, AG Murrill imme­di­ate­ly moved to dis­miss the men’s appeals. She asked the Louisiana Supreme Court to expe­dite five cas­es for exe­cu­tion last June. ​“In these five cas­es — and many oth­ers — the offend­ers failed to move their cas­es for many years and some­times decades,” she said in a state­ment. ​“Meanwhile, vic­tims’ fam­i­ly mem­bers are left with the fear that the con­vic­tion might be vacat­ed and the pain and trau­ma of wait­ing for final­i­ty for decades.”

However, the evi­dence con­firmed that it was state pros­e­cu­tors who were pri­mar­i­ly respon­si­ble for the delays. When Mr. Reed’s direct appeal con­clud­ed in 2017, he filed a ​“shell” peti­tion — pur­suant to state law and prac­tice — while his attor­neys began work­ing on a more detailed sup­ple­ment to the peti­tion due at the end of 2019. However, before the full peti­tion was filed, the dis­trict attorney’s office motioned to remove Mr. Reed’s lead attor­ney Blythe Taplin from the case. The court grant­ed the motion and stayed the dead­line for the peti­tion, but Mr. Reed was not appoint­ed a new lawyer. Ms. Taplin con­tend­ed that the DA sought to remove her because she had filed records requests with the DA’s office. ​“It’s shock­ing to see that the DA is now ask­ing for an exe­cu­tion war­rant and com­plain­ing about delay, giv­en the role that his office has played,” she told The Advocate.

Likewise, the ball had been in the state’s court in Mr. Roy’s case. He was sen­tenced to death in 1994. On appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court ordered an evi­den­tiary hear­ing on sev­er­al of Mr. Roy’s claims. In 2004, the par­ties agreed to push back the hear­ing and Mr. Roy moved to sub­poe­na the files of the pros­e­cu­tor who han­dled his tri­al, which the state opposed. The Louisiana Supreme Court ordered the state to file an addi­tion­al brief explain­ing why the files should not be dis­closed. But no brief was ever filed. In a sworn state­ment, one of Mr. Roy’s attor­neys said that a pros­e­cu­tor told her at the time that ​“noth­ing was going to hap­pen in Mr. Roy’s case as long as we were all wait­ing on [the DA] to file his brief.”

Indeed, noth­ing else hap­pened in either case before Louisiana sought the new exe­cu­tion war­rants in 2025. Local jour­nal­ists sug­gest­ed that these long peri­ods of inac­tiv­i­ty were com­mon in Louisiana cap­i­tal cas­es in the 2000s and 2010s, when the state stopped con­duct­ing exe­cu­tions due to a lack of lethal injec­tion drugs. Before Jessie Hoffman was put to death with nitro­gen gas in March 2025, the state’s last exe­cu­tion was in 2010, of a man who had waived his appeals. The state’s last exe­cu­tion before that was in 2002.

To suc­ceed in dis­miss­ing the men’s post-con­vic­tion appeals, the state had to prove that due to ​“events not under the con­trol of the state which have tran­spired since the date of orig­i­nal con­vic­tion,” the state was ​“mate­ri­al­ly prej­u­diced” in its abil­i­ty to chal­lenge the post-con­vic­tion peti­tion. AG Murrill con­tend­ed that the 8‑year delay in Mr. Reed’s case and the 21-year delay in Mr. Roy’s were inher­ent­ly prej­u­di­cial to the state.

But in two unan­i­mous deci­sions this month, the Louisiana Supreme Court dis­agreed. A dis­trict judge had ruled in favor of Mr. Roy and found that ​“the prej­u­dice was in the State’s con­trol,” and the Louisiana Supreme Court denied the state’s appeal of that deci­sion on February 3. Chief Justice John Weimer con­curred that the judge had ​“cor­rect­ly reject­ed the state’s asser­tion that the pas­sage of time is per se prej­u­di­cial.” The court elab­o­rat­ed its posi­tion on February 12 when it reversed a low­er court’s judg­ment against Mr. Reed. Since the law ​“explic­it­ly refers to events ​‘which have tran­spired,’ it dis­tin­guish­es between the pas­sage of time and those events them­selves,” the court rea­soned. The ​“state must show both that dis­crete events occurred (e.g., a par­tic­u­lar wit­ness died) and that such events were indeed mate­ri­al­ly prej­u­di­cial to the state…we find no such show­ing was made.”

Both men now have the oppor­tu­ni­ty to pur­sue their post-con­vic­tion appeals. Mr. Roy has argued that his tri­al attor­ney was inef­fec­tive by fail­ing to object when pros­e­cu­tors moved to strike every Black prospec­tive juror and fail­ing to con­tact fam­i­ly mem­bers who could have tes­ti­fied to Mr. Roy’s sub­stance abuse as a mit­i­gat­ing fac­tor. Mr. Reed’s claims include that he act­ed in self-defense, that some­one else par­tic­i­pat­ed in the shoot­ing in his case, and that his tri­al attor­neys failed to effec­tive­ly cross-exam­ine state wit­ness­es who received favors in exchange for their testimony.

However, under new leg­is­la­tion endorsed by AG Murrill and signed by Gov. Landry last year, cap­i­tal defen­dants will face stricter time­lines and lim­its on their appeals going for­ward — and the attor­ney gen­er­al will play a greater role in the process. The new law states that the pris­on­er ​“is respon­si­ble for seek­ing a rul­ing on his appli­ca­tion and purs­ing [sic] his claims,” and “[f]ailure to active­ly seek a ruling…shall con­sti­tute aban­don­ment of the appli­ca­tion,” result­ing in dis­missal. An appli­ca­tion is con­sid­ered ​“aban­doned” when the pris­on­er does not file any plead­ing relat­ed to it for two years. The law fur­ther states that when a pris­on­er ​“fails to time­ly seek a hearing…or fails to pur­sue claims for a peri­od of two years after fil­ing an appli­ca­tion, the delay caused by inac­tion shall be pre­sumed as prejudicial.”

“I fear that the attor­ney general’s involve­ment in these cas­es is unnec­es­sar­i­ly politi­ciz­ing them, and caus­ing con­fu­sion because her office is not famil­iar with the record or the his­to­ry,” said Ms. Taplin, now rep­re­sent­ing Mr. Roy, last year.

AG Murrill made the same argu­ment on prej­u­di­cial delay — that the state supreme court has now twice reject­ed — in sev­er­al oth­er pend­ing cas­es. Those cas­es include Antoinette Frank, the only woman on death row in Louisiana. Ms. Frank’s attor­neys have argued that the jury nev­er heard about dev­as­tat­ing abuse she expe­ri­enced as a child, or how those expe­ri­ences mir­rored an abu­sive dynam­ic with her code­fen­dant. AG Murrill drew crit­i­cisms and ethics con­cerns for hir­ing her husband’s pri­vate law firm to assist in fight­ing Ms. Frank’s appeal.

Source: Death Penalty Information Center, Leah Roemer, February 17, 2026

"One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed,
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted."

— Oscar Wilde

Death Penalty News For a World without the Death Penalty