COLUMBIA, S.C. — Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s dismissal of his final appeal, South Carolina inmate Marion Bowman Jr. has opted against seeking clemency. He expressed that he does not wish to endure life imprisonment for a murder he steadfastly claims he did not commit.
At 44 years old, Bowman is slated to be executed via lethal injection on Friday evening for the 2001 murder of his friend, Kandee Martin, whose body was discovered in her burning vehicle.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court justices decided without comment to allow the execution to go ahead, despite arguments regarding whether Bowman’s trial attorney displayed undue sympathy toward the white victim which may have undermined his defense.
Later, Bowman’s attorney, Lindsey Vann, released a statement articulating Bowman’s choice not to pursue clemency from Governor Henry McMaster. Vann highlighted that Bowman has maintained his innocence and could not in good conscience ask for a mercy that would impose a life sentence for a crime he believes he did not commit.
Historically, no South Carolina governor has chosen to grant mercy in the 45 executions since the reinstatement of capital punishment in 1976, meaning those sentenced to death typically do not see their sentences reduced to life imprisonment without parole.
If executed, Bowman will be the third Black man put to death in the state in just four months, a period during which South Carolina reopened its death chamber after a 13-year hiatus, largely owing to difficulties in securing lethal injection drugs.
Bowman is scheduled to be executed at 6 p.m. Friday at Broad River Correctional Institution in Columbia, with the procedure set to utilize a single dosage of pentobarbital.
Vann pointed out that after over twenty years of struggling against a flawed system, Bowman’s decision not to seek clemency represents a significant rejection of an unjust process that has consumed a considerable portion of his life.
Bowman was convicted for the murder of Martin, 21 years old, during the 2001 incident. He has continuously asserted his innocence since being apprehended. Interestingly, he declined a plea deal that would have guaranteed a life sentence, as he maintains he did not commit the crime.
The evidence presented against him during the trial largely consisted of testimonies from friends and family members, many of whom were offered reduced sentences in exchange for their cooperation regarding related offenses.
Some witnesses claimed that Bowman was angry over money owed to him by Martin, while another stated he thought Martin might be wearing a recording device intending to incriminate him.
Bowman contended that he sold drugs to Martin and they occasionally engaged in sexual acts when she could not pay.
One of his significant final appeals challenged the quality of his defense by arguing that his lawyer was racially biased and insufficiently vigorous because of perceived jury prejudices concerning the interracial dynamic between Bowman and the white female victim.
According to Bowman, his attorney implored him to plead guilty, citing racial dynamics: “Son, you need to plead guilty. You are charged with killing a white girl and you and your family are Black.”
Bowman’s appeal was ultimately rejected by the South Carolina Supreme Court, which deemed it “meritless” and suggested that comments from his trial attorney regarding his sympathy for the victim were misconstrued.
Additionally, Bowman’s legal team also contested South Carolina’s legislative protections that limit information regarding drugs used for executions, arguing that they infringe on the rights of inmates.
Concerns have been raised by an anesthesiologist regarding whether the state’s lethal injection protocol properly addresses Bowman’s weight, which is documented as 389 pounds (176 kilograms). Situations involving obesity can complicate both the administration of intravenous drugs and accurate dosages.
The state’s legal representatives contend that fatty individuals successfully receive IV treatments during numerous surgical and medical procedures daily.
This week, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against South Carolina, criticizing the new privacy laws which they claim have unfairly restricted information once readily available about execution procedures.
South Carolina law offers inmates a choice among three execution methods: a new and unused firing squad, the electric chair, or lethal injection. The two inmates previously executed in the state since the death chamber resumed operations—Freddie Owens and Richard Moore—opted for lethal injection.
