I cannot understand the Court's rush to extinguish it
On a Thursday evening in May, Edward Busby Jr. became the 600th person executed by the state of Texas since 1982, dying by lethal injection at Huntsville despite a rare convergence of expert opinion — from both sides of the courtroom — that he was intellectually disabled and therefore constitutionally protected from execution. The Supreme Court, moving with uncommon speed, lifted a stay that had been granted to examine those very claims, prompting a sharp dissent from Justice Jackson about the Court's willingness to rush toward death while rarely intervening to preserve life. His case joins a long and unresolved tension in American law between the declared prohibition on executing the intellectually disabled and the wide discretion given to states in deciding who qualifies.
- Both the defense and prosecution's own experts agreed Busby was intellectually disabled — yet a single trial judge overruled that consensus and upheld his death sentence.
- The Supreme Court lifted a protective stay within hours, without reviewing the substance of the disability claims, drawing a fierce dissent from Justice Jackson who questioned the Court's urgency to extinguish a life.
- Busby's legal team filed a second emergency stay the same evening; it was denied swiftly, as the state argued his claims were meritless, contradictory, and had already been litigated too many times.
- A pending Alabama case before the Supreme Court may soon change how intellectual disability is assessed in capital cases — but that reckoning arrived too late for Busby, who was pronounced dead at 8:11 p.m.
Edward Busby Jr. was pronounced dead at 8:11 p.m. on a Thursday in May, becoming the 600th person Texas has executed by lethal injection since 1982. Hours earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court had lifted a stay granted to examine whether he was intellectually disabled — a condition that has barred individuals from capital punishment under federal law for more than two decades.
What made the case unusual was not the legal dispute itself, but who was on which side of it. Both the defense and the prosecution had retained independent experts to assess Busby's intellectual capacity. Both concluded he was disabled. The trial judge in Tarrant County disagreed and upheld the death sentence in 2023. The district attorney's office initially recommended reducing the sentence to life in prison, then reversed course, ultimately supporting the execution.
Busby had been convicted for the 2004 abduction and death of Laura Lee Crane, a 77-year-old retired professor from Texas Christian University. Prosecutors said Busby and co-defendant Kathleen Latimer forced Crane into the trunk of her own car in a Fort Worth parking lot and suffocated her with 23 feet of duct tape wrapped around her face. Busby was later found in Oklahoma City driving her vehicle and led authorities to her body. He claimed Latimer had pushed him into the act and that he never intended for Crane to die. Latimer received a life sentence.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had issued a stay the prior week to allow a more thorough review of the disability claims. Judge James Graves Jr. wrote in a concurring opinion that the medical consensus was unambiguous: Busby was intellectually disabled and ineligible for execution under the Constitution. But the Supreme Court overturned that stay at the Texas Attorney General's request, with three justices dissenting. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote pointedly that the Court rarely intervenes to preserve life in capital cases, and she could not understand its haste to end one here.
Busby's lawyers filed another emergency stay that same evening. It was denied. Before the lethal injection began, Busby offered a final statement to the warden — one of repeated apology and a request for forgiveness. It was his third scheduled execution date; courts had twice before delayed his death.
A case now before the Supreme Court, originating in Alabama, may soon reshape how intellectual disability is evaluated in capital proceedings by weighing multiple IQ scores together. For Busby, that potential shift in the law arrived too late.
Edward Busby Jr. was pronounced dead at 8:11 p.m. on a Thursday evening in May, strapped to a gurney in the execution chamber at the Huntsville penitentiary. He became the 600th person Texas has put to death by lethal injection since 1982. Hours before the drugs began flowing into his veins, the U.S. Supreme Court had lifted a stay that a lower court had issued to examine whether he was intellectually disabled—a condition that federal law has barred from capital punishment for more than two decades.
The case turned on a stark disagreement about what the evidence actually showed. Both the defense and the prosecution had hired experts to assess Busby's intellectual capacity. Both experts concluded he was intellectually disabled. The trial judge in Tarrant County disagreed. In 2023, that judge upheld the death sentence anyway. The district attorney's office, which had prosecuted the case, recommended that Busby's sentence be reduced to life in prison. But the office later reversed course, stating it believed Busby was not intellectually disabled and supported the execution.
Busby was convicted for the death of Laura Lee Crane, a 77-year-old retired professor from Texas Christian University. In January 2004, prosecutors said, Busby and his co-defendant Kathleen Latimer abducted Crane from a grocery store parking lot in Fort Worth. They forced her into the trunk of her own car. As they drove, they wrapped duct tape around her face—23 feet of it, covering her mouth and nose. She suffocated. Busby was arrested in Oklahoma City, driving Crane's vehicle. He led authorities to her body just north of the Texas border. When questioned, Busby told investigators that Latimer had pushed him to carry out the abduction and restraint, and that he never intended for Crane to be harmed. Latimer received a life sentence and remains in prison.
The legal machinery that led to Busby's execution moved with unusual speed. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had issued a stay the previous week to review his intellectual disability claims more thoroughly. Judge James Graves Jr., in a concurring opinion, wrote that the medical consensus was clear: Busby was intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for execution under constitutional law. But on Thursday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned that stay at the request of the Texas Attorney General's Office. The decision was divided. Three justices would have allowed the stay to remain. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented sharply, writing that the Court's haste troubled her deeply. "In capital cases, we rarely intervene to preserve life," she wrote. "I cannot understand the Court's rush to extinguish it, much less in the circumstances of this case."
After the Supreme Court's decision, Busby's lawyers filed another emergency stay request with the 5th Circuit that same evening. It was denied swiftly. The Texas Attorney General's Office had argued that Busby's intellectual disability claims were "meritless" and based on "conflicting evidence." The office also contended that the claims were "time-barred"—that Busby had already litigated them repeatedly and was not entitled to another review. "Busby has litigated his claim many times over," the attorney general's office stated. "He was not entitled to another bite at the apple."
About two hours before his execution, Busby was asked by the warden if he had a final statement. He appeared deeply remorseful. He apologized repeatedly and asked for forgiveness before the lethal drugs began their work. This was not his first scheduled execution date. Twice before, courts had delayed his death.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that executing intellectually disabled people violates the Constitution. But the Court has allowed states considerable latitude in determining which disabilities actually qualify. A case pending before the Supreme Court, originating in Alabama, could reshape how judges assess intellectual disability by considering the cumulative weight of multiple IQ test scores. That decision may alter the landscape for future capital cases. For Busby, it came too late.
Citações Notáveis
The medical community's consensus here is that Busby is intellectually disabled and ineligible for execution.— 5th Circuit Judge James Graves Jr., in concurring opinion
How can anyone claim this is fair due process?— Abraham Bonowitz, executive director of Death Penalty Action
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
How can both the prosecution's own expert and the defense expert agree someone is intellectually disabled, and the execution still happens?
That's the core of what happened here. The law says you can't execute someone with intellectual disability. But the trial judge simply disagreed with both experts and upheld the death sentence anyway. There's no clear mechanism to override that judgment once it's made.
And the Supreme Court didn't want to look at it?
They lifted the stay in hours without reviewing the merits. Three justices wanted to keep the stay in place. Justice Jackson's dissent suggests she saw the rush itself as the problem—that the Court was moving to end a life without actually examining the substance of the claim.
What did the prosecutor's office actually want?
They recommended life in prison. But then they changed their position and supported the execution, saying they believed he wasn't intellectually disabled despite their own expert's findings. It's a contradiction that sits at the center of the case.
Did Busby show any understanding of what was happening to him?
In his final statement, he was remorseful and asked for forgiveness. Whether that demonstrates intellectual capacity or not—that's part of what the experts disagreed about.
Is this likely to happen again?
There's an Alabama case pending at the Supreme Court that could change how courts weigh multiple IQ scores when assessing disability. That might tighten things. But for now, states have a lot of discretion, and judges can override expert consensus.