Fairchild v. Norris
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Per curiam
We deny appellant’s request for stay of execution. Appellant offers several legal arguments which essentially are based upon his being presumptively mentally retarded. The issue of whether appellant is mentally retarded has previously been rejected by United States District Judge G. Thomas Eisele in Fairchild v. Lockhard, 744 F.Supp. 1461 (1989). Judge Eisele decided appellant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights before confessing his involvement in the robbery, rape and murder of Ms. Mason. In making this ruling he determined appellant was not retarded.
Judge…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Ashe v. SwensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Fleming v. ZantSupreme Court of Georgia · 1989
- Fairchild v. LockhartDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1989
3Cited by9 opinions
- Rankin v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1997
- Palmer v. Arkansas Council on Economic EducationSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2001
- Fairchild v. NorrisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1994
- Singleton v. NorrisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1998
- Fairchild v. NorrisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1994
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.