Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Pickens v. Tucker

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 2, 1994No. 94-435Published

1ConcurrenceRobert L. Brown, Justice

The movant, Edward Charles Pickens, mounts a Due Process claim, alleging that Governor Jim Guy Tucker is a biased determiner of his clemency application by virtue of his representation of the State in Pick-ens’s appeal in 1977. See Pickens v. State, 261 Ark. 756, 551 S.W.2d 212 (1977). According to that opinion, two deputy attorneys general also acted as special prosecutors at the Pickens trial.

The power to exercise clemency is vested in the chief executive and not the courts. Ark. Const, art. 6, § 18; Woods v. State, 302 Ark. 512, 790 S.W.2d 892 (1990); Coones v. State, 280 Ark. 321, 657…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Connecticut Board of Pardons v. DumschatSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. Harold Lamont Otey v. Frank X. Hopkins, Warden of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional ComplexCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1994
  3. Coones v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1983
  4. Pickens v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1977
  5. Smith v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1977

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API