BLIND DATES: WHEN SHOULD THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BEGIN TO RUN ON A METHOD-OF-EXECUTION CHALLENGE?

This Article is the first to take a comprehensive look at the issue of statute-of-limitations accrual in method-of-execution cases. In other words, when does the clock start ticking on a death row inmate's right to challenge the way in which the state intends to execute him? Most circuit courts have held that method-of-execution challenges accrue at the completion of the direct appeal process. This means that death row inmates in these jurisdictions must file method-of-execution challenges years, and sometimes even decades, before an actual execution is scheduled. Although this approach has been the subject of much criticism, even the dissenting view would tie the accrual date to a particular stage of the death row inmate's appeals. This Article examines whether either rule—the majority's or the dissenters'—makes sense in light of the nature of method-of-execution challenges and the purposes of statutes of limitations. It concludes that, rather than using the appellate and postconviction process as a guide in determining when an unrelated challenge to the state's method of execution should accrue, courts should treat method-of-execution claims as the unique tort claims that they are and should tie accrual to the future constitutional injury that has yet to occur. The approach proposed in this Article would allow death row inmates with meritorious claims to have their days in court. And it is more faithful to the historical purposes of statutes of limitations, more practical to administer, and no less consistent with the desire expressed by many courts to preclude dilatory lawsuits.