A disabled man has been executed after the US Supreme Court lifted a stay of execution at the last minute for a brutal murder in 1996.
Matthew Reeves was put to death by the state of Alabama, at Holman Prison in Atmore.
His time of death was at 9:24 pm - two hours after the highest court in the US gave it the go ahead.
He offered no final words and had refused to eat having made no special meal request, but for a bottle of Sprite.
Reeves was sentenced to death for the November 27, 1996, murder of Willie Johnson in Dallas County, Alabama.
His lawyers said he is intellectually disabled, claiming he read at a first grade level and had the language competency of a four-year-old.
The scheduled time for the execution was delayed from 6pm before the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to let the execution by lethal injection proceed.
Mr Johnson had picked up 18-year-old Reeves among other people to give them a lift as they were on the roadside in Selma, it is reported. He was then robbed of $360 and died after being shot in the neck.
Reeves then partied afterwards, making fun over what he had done and talked about getting a “teardrop” tattoo to mark having killed someone.
The question over Reeves’ intellectual capacity was at the centre of the defence’s case and why the execution had been delayed.
It was put on hold by a federal judge in Alabama last week which was then upheld by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
But the case then went to the Supreme Court after an appeal by the Alabama General’s Office.
“After 26 years, justice has finally been served,” read Commissioner John Hamm, on behalf of the family of Mr Johnson following the execution."
Justice Elena Kagan, though, on the Supreme Court, was critical of the execution taking place.
"This Court should have left the matter there, rather than enable Reeves’s execution by lethal injection to go forward,” said Ms Kagan.
“Four judges on two courts have decided—after extensive record development, briefing, and argument—that Matthew Reeves’ execution should not proceed as scheduled tonight.
"The law demands that we give their conclusions deference... But the Court today disregards the well-supported findings...consigning Reeves to a method of execution he would not have chosen if properly informed of the alternatives.”
