Mitchell and Mayes Clash in High-Stakes Battle Over Inmate Executions

A legal battle is brewing in Arizona over who holds the ultimate authority to seek execution warrants. Attorney General Kris Mayes asserts she represents “the state” in such decisions. Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell claims the same right for herself and other prosecuting agencies.

This clash has reached the Arizona Supreme Court, where justices must decide who has the legal authority to request an execution warrant. The decision could impact the fate of Aaron Gunches, a death row inmate who pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and kidnapping in the 2002 killing of Ted Price.

Mitchell argues she has as much authority as the attorney general to seek an execution warrant. She points out that under Arizona law, the Supreme Court should issue a warrant if “the state” files a notice that all post-conviction and habeas corpus proceedings are complete. According to her, this definition includes all prosecuting agencies, not just the attorney general’s office.

On the other hand, Mayes contends the attorney general holds the exclusive right to request such warrants. She emphasizes her role as the state’s “chief legal officer” and highlights that her office represents the agency responsible for carrying out executions, thus providing her unique access to vital information and protocols.

The conflict arose when an earlier warrant for Gunches’ execution, sought by former Attorney General Mark Brnovich, expired before the execution could be carried out. Although Gunches himself had requested the warrant and later retracted it, Mayes did not pursue a new one, awaiting a review of the death penalty procedures by a special commissioner.

Mitchell has since asked the Supreme Court for a new warrant, but Mayes argues that authority lies solely with the attorney general. The determination of this matter will set a critical precedent, affecting Arizona’s approach to capital punishment.

The implications extend far beyond Gunches. Arizona currently has 109 men and three women on death row, and the court’s decision will influence how and when future executions can be pursued.