Alabama Governor Commutes Death Sentence in 1991 Murder Case

Alabama Governor Kay Ivey has commuted the death sentence of Robin “Rocky” Myers to life imprisonment without parole, marking the first time she has halted an execution since taking office in 2017.

Key Takeaways

Governor Kay Ivey commuted Robin “Rocky” Myers’ death sentence to life without parole due to concerns about his possible innocence in a 1991 murder case.
Despite the jury recommending life imprisonment at Myers’ 1994 trial, the judge imposed the death penalty—a decision now reversed by the governor.
Ivey cited lack of physical evidence and conflicting testimony in her decision, which came despite strong objections from Alabama’s Attorney General.
This marks the first commutation of a death sentence by an Alabama governor since 1999 and Ivey’s first since taking office in 2017.

Doubts Prompt Rare Death Sentence Commutation

Robin “Rocky” Myers has maintained his innocence since being convicted of the 1991 murder of Ludie Mae Tucker in Decatur, Alabama. Governor Ivey’s decision comes after three decades of legal battles and appeals, with Myers surviving several previous execution dates. The commutation changes his sentence from death to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, acknowledging significant questions about his guilt while respecting the jury’s original conviction.

The unusual nature of this commutation is highlighted by its rarity – this represents the first time Ivey has stopped an execution since becoming governor in 2017 and marks the first commutation of a death sentence by any Alabama governor since 1999. While Governor Ivey has expressed continued support for capital punishment generally, she determined that the specific circumstances of Myers’ case warranted intervention based on her review of the evidence.

NEW REACTION: Alabama AG ‘astonished’ by governor’s death row commutation #alpolitics https://t.co/aTDCTW8Z4Y

— WSFA 12 News (@wsfa12news) March 1, 2025

Controversy Surrounds Original Sentencing

Myers’ case has been particularly controversial because the jury at his 1994 trial had recommended a life sentence, but Circuit Court Judge Claude Bennett McRae overrode that recommendation and imposed the death penalty instead. This judicial override was legal in Alabama at the time but has since been abolished. The practice allowed judges to impose death sentences regardless of jury recommendations, a power that critics argued undermined the jury system and led to inconsistent application of capital punishment.

Ivey said in a statement that she couldn’t allow the death sentence to go forward. Still, “I pray that the Tucker family may, in some way, find closure and peace knowing this case is closed, and Mr. Myers will spend the rest of his life in prison,” she said.

The governor’s decision has received support from death penalty opponents and some of those involved in the original trial. Mae Puckett, a juror from Myers’ trial, now believes in his innocence and supported the commutation. Multiple lawyers working on Myers’ case have pointed out significant inconsistencies in the prosecution’s arguments, including a troubling lack of forensic evidence connecting Myers to the crime scene and questions about witness reliability.

Attorney General Expresses Strong Opposition

Not everyone welcomed the governor’s decision. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall publicly criticized Ivey’s action, expressing both surprise and disappointment that she had reached this conclusion after what he characterized as a “cursory review” of the case. Marshall’s office has defended the conviction through numerous appeals over three decades, and no court has previously found grounds to overturn the sentence or conviction.

The public disagreement between the governor and attorney general highlights the complex nature of the case and the different standards applied by courts reviewing convictions versus a governor considering clemency. While courts are bound by strict legal standards and procedural rules, a governor exercising clemency power can make decisions based on broader considerations, including doubts about guilt that may not rise to the level required for a court to overturn a conviction.