Lawyers representing a South Carolina inmate scheduled for execution are seeking to halt the process, arguing that his defense’s plea for his life during the original trial was insufficient. Mikal Mahdi, aged 41, is set to be executed on April 11 for the 2004 murder of an off-duty police officer. His attorneys claim that the defense’s case to spare Mahdi’s life was brief, lasting only about 30 minutes, and failed to delve into crucial aspects of his troubled childhood and mental health struggles.
Mahdi’s upbringing was marked by chaos and abuse, with his father subjecting him to paramilitary training after he displayed emotional and academic difficulties. Despite enduring significant trauma and spending years in prison, including solitary confinement, Mahdi’s psychological struggles were not adequately presented at his trial. The defense called only two witnesses, while prosecutors brought forward 28.
In a recent appeal, Mahdi’s lawyers argue that his life story was reduced to a mere summary during the trial, emphasizing the need for a more comprehensive examination of his circumstances before his scheduled execution. The state has yet to respond to this appeal, and Mahdi has until March 28 to choose the method of his execution: firing squad, electric chair, or lethal injection.
Mahdi’s conviction stems from a crime spree that spanned multiple states, culminating in the fatal shooting of officer James Myers in 2004. Despite Judge Clifton Newman’s observation that finding humanity in defendants is essential, Mahdi was sentenced to death, with Newman stating that Mahdi seemed to lack this essential quality.
As Mahdi faces the prospect of execution, his legal team is advocating for a more thorough review of his case, urging that all pertinent information be considered before any irreversible actions are taken.
The defense team’s failure led to an unfair sentencing decision by Judge Newman, and he should not be condemned to death as a result. “It has become evident that Judge Newman lacked crucial information essential for making a just sentencing determination,” they stated.
