Tennessee has set an execution date of May 22, 2025 for Oscar Smith, who was convicted for the 1989 shooting and stabbing to death of his estranged wife, Judy Smith, and her sons, Jason and Chad Burnett.

Join the Virtual Sit In

Call Governor Lee at 615-741-2001 with the following message:

"Hi. My name is [your name]. I am calling to ask that Gov. Lee follows the teachings of his faith and intervene to stop the execution of Oscar Smith scheduled for May 22, 2025. Mr. Smith has always maintained his innocence. Before this execution can proceed, the evidence must be thoroughly re-examined. I also ask that you come to death row to pray with the men who are condemned there. Thank you."

REGISTER FOR VIRTUAL VIGIL HERE.

Original petition language:

Read more about the case here (paywall), an article discussing Smith's motion for a stay of execution to conduct further DNA testing. A look at the images from the time of the murders is here, Oscar Smith has always maintained his innocence. In addition to forensic concerns, multiple issues of fairness regarding Smith's jury have been raised. Read a detailed list below, which is from the 2022 petition by Tennesseans for Alternatives to the Death Penalty.

Governor Lee continues to ignore a letter asking him to come pray with the men on death row that was signed by 32 death row inmates in Riverbend Maximum Security Institution in Nashville.

Please sign the petition asking Governor Lee to do everything within his power to stop this execution, including issuing a stay, and seeking a path to clemency in the case.

Governor Lee should grant clemency because the State’s fingerprint examiner’s testimony that secured Mr. Smith’s conviction is junk science and unsupportable.

●     State attorneys called the identification of the bloody palm print found at the crime scene the “most important piece of evidence presented to the jury,” and at trial, the prosecution instructed the jury that it should convict Mr. Smith based solely on the testimony identifying Mr. Smith’s print. However, the State’s supposed expert’s conclusion that the print belonged to Mr. Smith has since been rebutted with scientifically reliable evidence.

●     A renowned expert in fingerprint analysis, with decades of experience and impeccable credentials, reviewed the fingerprint analysis of the State’s expert. In a sworn declaration, she stated that the methodology of latent print examination has significantly changed in the last thirty years, making an identification based on a number of matching “points” as in Mr. Smith’s analysis, outdated and unreliable. She also stated that she was unable to find any record that the State’s comparison was ever verified by another qualified examiner, which, even in 1990, was a mandated procedure for a Certified Latent Print Examiner.

●     On the day the Post-Conviction Fingerprint Analysis Act of 2021 became law, Mr. Smith filed for post-conviction relief presenting the updated analysis refuting the State’s palm print evidence. The Court denied relief, summarily determining that the proof is not favorable to Mr. Smith. Such a conclusion is incredible; expert testimony that the sole proof identifying Oscar as the perpetrator was junk science clearly is “favorable.” The court also applied the wrong standard to Mr. Smith’s petition and considered whether his evidence would have changed his sentence under the wrong law. Mr. Smith’s appeal is currently moving through the courts, but there is no assurance of resolution before his execution date.

Governor Lee should grant clemency because Oscar Smith was denied a bedrock principle of our justice system—an informed and impartial jury.

●     Mr. Smith’s unanimous death sentence was actually imposed by one set of jurors who did not believe Oscar should or would be executed, and another set of jurors who engaged in misconduct to ensure that he would be executed.

●     Two jurors have stated that they did not intend for Mr. Smith to be executed but believed that he would be released if they did not vote for a death sentence. They also believed that, because Tennessee had not executed anyone since 1960, Mr. Smith would never be executed. Their belief that Mr. Smith would have been released if they had not imposed a death sentence stems from the unavailability of a sentence of life without parole at the time of his trial, which became an option for Tennessee juries only a few years after Mr. Smith’s sentencing, as well as the erroneous belief—discussed openly in the jury room—that a life sentence was only 13 years.

●     According to at least two jurors, Mr. Smith would have received a life sentence had the trial court instructed the jury on when Oscar would have been eligible for parole. Under Tennessee’s criminal code at the time, he would have not been eligible for parole for at least 36 years per murder, less sentence credits, and the Court could have ordered the sentences to run consecutively—meaning he would not have been eligible for parole for 108 years, ensuring Mr. Smith would never be released from prison.

●     Though Mr. Smith’s trial counsel requested a jury instruction clarifying when he would be parole eligible, the court denied the request.

●     Capital punishment is only constitutional when jurors follow the law and that did not happen in Mr. Smith’s case. Two jurors held prior, stalwart beliefs in favor of the death penalty, making them unqualified to serve on a capital jury. They hid this bias so that they could participate in a capital trial. In their sworn declarations, these jurors admit that they failed to follow the law by disregarding the trial court’s instructions to weigh aggravating and mitigating factors when determining an appropriate sentence for Mr. Smith while sticking to their pretrial belief that death was the appropriate sentence regardless of the proof.