Senate committee hears bill to extend execution-warrant timeline; advocates and prosecutors dispute effects

CARSON CITY — The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 350 on April 1, a measure that would lengthen the time between issuance of an execution warrant and the scheduled execution and require only one execution warrant be pending at a time.

Sponsor Senator James Orangehall (State Senate District 21) asked the committee to consider an amendment clarifying that only a single warrant may be pending in Nevada. David Anthony, a Las Vegas public defense attorney who presented the bill in a personal capacity, told the committee the bill would change two statutory time frames. Under NRS 176.345 the current 60-to-90-day window between signing an execution warrant and the execution date would be extended to 180–270 days; under NRS 176.495 the current 15-to-30-day window would likewise be extended to 180–270 days. The bill also includes language to ensure only one execution warrant is pending in the state at a time.

Proponents said the longer timeframe would give courts, counsel, the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) and victims’ families more predictable time to resolve issues that often arise only after a warrant is issued. "There are certain constitutional rights that cannot be litigated until an execution warrant is pending," Anthony said. He described contested matters such as competency-to-be-executed evaluations, petitions to the Pardons Board, and challenges to method of execution as frequently requiring more time than current law allows.

Supporters included civil-rights groups, public defenders and family members. Kayla Maesse, civil rights analyst at the ACLU of Nevada, said the extension "ensures that individuals facing the ultimate civil liberties violation have additional time to conduct a legal review." The Nevada Coalition Against the Death Penalty, the Clark County Public Defender’s Office (represented by legal extern Harrison Epstein), and multiple family members of people on death row gave in-person or telephone testimony in favor of the bill.

Several witnesses emphasized logistical and procedural strain on NDOC. James Zurenda, director of the Nevada Department of Corrections, testified neutrally that the department’s execution protocol anticipates many steps starting 30 days before an execution — contracting, arranging medical personnel, coroner coordination, chaplain and spiritual-advisor attendance and security rehearsals — and said the current minimum 15-day statutory window (and 30-day outer limit in the related provision) is difficult to reconcile with NDOC’s operational needs. "Fifteen days does seem unreasonable," Zurenda said.

Opponents included the Nevada District Attorneys Association (NDAA). Jennifer Noble, speaking for the NDAA, said prosecutors worry that tripling the statutory windows will invite additional last-minute litigation not limited to execution logistics and could extend unpredictable, resource-intensive appeals. Noble said increased timeframes would likely be used to seek successive petitions and writs that challenge convictions or sentences and that the extra time might not resolve litigated claims within the proposed 270-day cap.

Committee members asked several procedural and policy questions. Senator Ellison asked whether video conferencing for testimony would still be allowed under the proposed amendment; Anthony said it would if based on specified triggers such as distance (100 miles) or medical condition and with 48 hours’ notice under the amendment he described. Senator Hansen questioned how often the litigation Anthony cited actually occurs given Nevada has not carried out an execution since 2006; Anthony and other witnesses said end-stage litigation has occurred in several recent cases despite the long pause in executions, and argued the bill would reduce repeated stop-start litigation.

Family members and a former death-row inmate spoke about the human consequences. James Allen, a man who said he was once sentenced to death and later released, described being ineligible for adequate counseling and legal preparation when his first execution date was rapidly scheduled, and urged the committee to allow more time. Several witnesses cited the cost and emotional toll on victims’ families created by short-notice scheduling and last-minute stays.

No final committee vote on SB350 was taken at the hearing. The committee heard neutral testimony from NDOC and opposition from the NDAA before closing the record. The bill’s sponsor and proponents said they will continue to work with prosecutors and NDOC to refine language before any potential committee vote.

SB350 would amend NRS 176.345 and NRS 176.495 to expand the statutory windows and add language limiting pending execution warrants to one at a time; it also interacts with NDOC’s execution protocol and the Pardons Board process. If advanced by committee, SB350 would next be eligible for a floor motion and additional amendment on the Senate floor.