By Vanguard Staff
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK – The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals on Wednesday lifted a district court’s stay of execution for John Hanson, clearing the way for his execution today, June 12, despite unresolved allegations of bias and constitutional violations in his clemency hearing.
The court’s decision, granting the State’s request for a writ of prohibition, overrides a temporary reprieve issued just two days earlier by the Oklahoma County District Court. That stay had been entered to allow litigation to proceed over the participation of Sean Malloy—a former Tulsa County prosecutor and current Pardon and Parole Board member with ties to Hanson’s 2006 resentencing—in Hanson’s clemency hearing.
Hanson’s attorneys argue that Malloy’s involvement violates Hanson’s right to a fair and impartial hearing. The district court had agreed the claim warranted further review and had denied the State’s motion to dismiss the suit. But the OCCA’s ruling effectively strips the lower court of jurisdiction to delay the execution, despite the pending constitutional challenge.
Emma Rolls, one of Hanson’s attorneys, condemned the decision, stating, “No person facing execution should have to plead for mercy in front of a decisionmaker with direct ties to their prosecution. The OCCA’s refusal to allow a thorough inquiry into the apparent bias on the Board’s proceedings leaves Mr. Hanson at imminent risk of being executed without the constitutional safeguards he’s entitled to under law.”
Hanson’s legal team has appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, but the window to intervene is rapidly closing.
Hanson was sentenced to death in 2001 for the murder of Mary Bowles during a crime spree in Tulsa, Oklahoma. His co-defendant, Victor Miller, had a prior murder conviction and was widely recognized as the ringleader. He was later resentenced to life without parole.
Hanson, meanwhile, now faces execution despite new evidence, unacknowledged disabilities, and an extensive record of nonviolence in federal prison over the past two decades. Hanson’s attorneys argue that clemency is warranted because he is less culpable than Miller, suffers from Autism Spectrum Disorder, and never received a fair opportunity to present critical mitigating evidence to his jury.
The clemency petition for Hanson outlines a case marked by severe disparities. Prosecutors initially alleged that Hanson killed Bowles, but evidence later emerged that Miller had confessed to being the shooter. A trial judge found the new evidence compelling enough to grant Hanson a new trial, but that decision was overturned by the Court of Criminal Appeals on jurisdictional grounds.
At Hanson’s 2006 resentencing, the jury was not allowed to consider his guilt or innocence, only his punishment, and did so without hearing directly from the witness to Miller’s confession. Judge Caroline Wall, who presided over that proceeding, issued an extraordinary post-trial report stating that Hanson should be serving life without parole.
She noted that Hanson’s case lacked critical evidence and that race—Hanson is Black, the victim was white—may have influenced the outcome. She also cited comparative culpability concerns, noting that Miller’s sentence had already been reduced.
Hanson was not diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder until 2016, long after his trial. According to expert testimony submitted to the Pardon and Parole Board, Hanson’s developmental impairments made him especially vulnerable to Miller’s manipulation.
Dr. Robert Cohen, a neuropsychologist who evaluated Hanson, found he met all diagnostic criteria for ASD and concluded that his behavior and decisions during the 1999 crime spree were consistent with those of someone living with unrecognized cognitive impairments. These impairments were never disclosed to the jury and were never factored into sentencing.
Despite the severity of the crime and Hanson’s prior record, his two decades in federal prison reflect a striking pattern of rehabilitation and institutional trust. Hanson is currently serving a life sentence plus 82 years in the federal system for related crimes. Federal corrections staff describe him as dependable, respectful, and nonviolent.
Roseva Cosenza, Hanson’s correctional counselor for nearly 20 years at United States Penitentiary Pollock—a maximum-security prison considered among the most dangerous in the country—called him “a stabilizing force” and “one of the most dependable inmates I’ve ever worked with.”
She testified that Hanson was regularly entrusted with high-profile positions requiring staff confidence, including assignments in commissary, laundry, and administrative offices. She added that, even during prison lockdowns, Hanson was allowed to move freely to assist staff, a rare privilege.
Former Bureau of Prisons case manager Dr. Keith Fox and retired official Janet Perdue echoed Cosenza’s assessment, characterizing Hanson as an incarcerated man who matured with time and became an asset to institutional stability.
Perdue called his record “devoid of incidents involving violence or aggression,” a rare feat given the violent context of USP Pollock. Hanson’s disciplinary record over nearly 20 years includes only minor, non-violent infractions, most dating back more than a decade.
Clemency is traditionally meant to correct injustices not easily remedied by the courts, particularly in cases of comparative culpability or excessive punishment. Hanson’s supporters argue that his case exemplifies that purpose. While the State’s case relied heavily on a jailhouse informant’s testimony, a later confession from Miller was never properly vetted or presented.
Meanwhile, the original jury never knew about Hanson’s autism diagnosis, the systemic abuse he endured as a child in Oklahoma’s now-disgraced juvenile institutions, or the extent to which he was manipulated by Miller. And although Hanson has been a model federal prisoner, the State of Oklahoma now seeks to execute him while the person who pulled the trigger lives out his life in prison.
Hanson’s fate now lies with the Oklahoma Supreme Court and potentially with Governor Kevin Stitt. His legal team continues to pursue emergency relief in the final hours, arguing that to proceed with the execution without resolving claims of bias and constitutional violations would be an irreparable miscarriage of justice.
As Emma Rolls emphasized, “This case is also about the integrity of Oklahoma’s clemency process and the promise of a fair, impartial hearing.”
