Jamie Mills received a death sentence for the 2004 killings of Fred and Vera Hill, as confirmed by the Alabama Department of Corrections.
Alabama’s second execution of 2024 is scheduled to take place on Thursday, unless there is intervention from the U.S. Supreme Court.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Jamie Ray Mills’ appeals on Tuesday. Mills was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Floyd and Vera Hill in Guin in 2004. The appeals court affirmed the district court’s ruling from last week, finding no error in rejecting Mills’ appeal.
Sign up now to receive the latest news and updates delivered straight to your inbox every morning. Stay informed and stay ahead with our morning headlines. Don’t miss out on the top stories of the day. Subscribe today!
Civil rights and humanitarian groups have expressed deep concerns over the ongoing executions in Alabama. These groups have consistently opposed the state’s implementation of the death penalty. In fact, thousands of individuals have signed petitions, which are then hand delivered to the governor’s office, urging her to grant clemency.
According to Mike Nicholson, a senior policy analyst with Alabama Arise, there is a significant amount of evidence indicating that the death penalty is administered in an arbitrary and racially biased manner. He suggests that implementing unanimous jury sentencing could help mitigate these issues.
In 2004, court documents reveal that Mills and his common-law spouse, JoAnn, drove to the Hills’ location and entered their residence by pretending to need to make several phone calls.
Mills managed to pilfer belongings from the residence, resulting in a profitable haul of $140.
In December 2004, he was arrested and faced charges of three counts of capital murder. The charges included one count for each individual who lost their life and an additional count due to multiple deaths occurring during a single incident.
In 2007, Mills was convicted by a jury and subsequently sentenced to death with an 11-1 vote. State and federal courts have since upheld this conviction.
In late March, Governor Kay Ivey set the execution date for Mills to be carried out between midnight on Thursday and 6 a.m. on Friday. This decision triggered another series of appeals.
The court was allegedly misled by the prosecution when they failed to disclose a plea deal that was made with JoAnn Mills in exchange for her testimony.
According to Angie Setzer, an attorney with the Equal Justice Initiative, one of the lawyers representing Jamie Mills in the lawsuit, it is crucial to investigate and shed light on the concealment and dishonesty that has taken place. Setzer believes that this exploration is necessary before any decisions, such as Mills’ execution, are made.
It is believed that another person accompanied Mills and his common-law spouse in carrying out the illegal act.
JoAnn Mills, who was sentenced to life with the chance of parole, informed the police in two separate statements that she had suspicions about another individual planting the weapons in their vehicle. She further claimed that this person had previously brought stolen items to their residence.
Mills’ attorneys claim that the district attorney struck a plea deal with JoAnn Mills, which resulted in her avoiding the death penalty and becoming eligible for parole. They argue that this crucial information should have been revealed to Mills’ defense team.
“They have never denied the occurrence of these meetings, and it is important to note that these meetings contradict the claims made during Mr. Mills’ trial. At the trial, the District Attorney argued that JoAnn Mills was testifying without any expectation of receiving a plea deal,” explained Setzer.
During the trial, the testimony of the common-law spouse played a crucial role. Setzer accused the district attorney of making false claims about the absence of a plea deal with JoAnn Mills when, in reality, there was one.
The federal district court ruled against Mills in the case, stating that Mills had previously made similar claims without providing evidence. Moreover, the court found that the new evidence presented was not submitted within the required timeframe and did not hold enough weight to justify halting the execution.
Attorneys filed another lawsuit on Mills’ behalf in federal district court, claiming that the lethal injection protocol violated the constitution. They argued that he would be strapped to the gurney for hours and that he was denied access to counsel, as his attorneys were not allowed to be present in the execution chamber with him.
The federal district court handed down a ruling against him, stating that his claim wasn’t filed in a timely manner. The judge also concluded that even if he had filed on time, Mills would unlikely prevail on the merits of the case. The judge reasoned that the U.S. Constitution does not provide him with a right to counsel and that securing him to the gurney is a standard part of the execution process, which does not subject him to an unconstitutional level of pain.
