This Looming Tennessee Execution Would Be One of the Most Abhorrent in History. There’s Still Time to Stop It.
Tony Carruthers is on death row unjustly. Photo illustration by Slate. Photos by Tennessee Department of Correction/AP and txking/Getty Images Plus.
Tennessee plans to put Tony Carruthers to death on May 21. He would be the 17th execution in the state in the last half-century.
The execution of Carruthers would also be among the most unjust ever carried out there, or anywhere the death penalty remains legal in the United States. His case reflects many of the well-known failures of capital punishment: reliance on paid informants, information withheld from the jury, untested physical evidence, and the defendant’s mental illness.
Most troubling, Carruthers was forced to serve as his own lawyer during his trial. If he is executed, he would be the first person in nearly a century to be put to death after being required to represent himself. Courts should intervene to prevent such a miscarriage of justice. They should act quickly and grant the motion requesting DNA testing that was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and its Tennessee affiliate in the state Supreme Court earlier this month.
If the courts do not act, Governor Bill Lee should use his clemency authority to spare Carruthers.
Carruthers, along with his co-defendant James Montgomery, was sentenced to death for the 1994 killings of Marcellos “Cello” Anderson, his mother Delois Anderson, and Frederick Tucker. The state’s case relied on testimony from a paid jailhouse informant, while no physical evidence placed Carruthers at the crime scene.
The use of jailhouse informants is widely recognized as a leading cause of wrongful convictions in capital cases. According to Northwestern University’s Center on Wrongful Convictions, what it calls the “Snitch System” is responsible for 45.9% of U.S. capital case convictions that are later overturned. Only recently did Tennessee acknowledge that a paid informant had been used. For decades, prosecutors maintained that their key witness, Albert Shaw, was not incentivized for his testimony. Despite repeated requests from the defense, the state did not disclose evidence of Shaw’s status as a confidential paid informant until August 2024.
Failing to disclose such information to the defense is a serious violation of a prosecutor’s obligation to share potentially exculpatory evidence.
Additionally, Montgomery at one point stated that Carruthers was not involved in the murders and instead implicated another individual, Ronnie Irving. The state possesses unmatched fingerprints and DNA evidence but has not tested them to determine whether they belong to Irving. The ACLU is simply requesting that this evidence be examined.
This leads to the issue of Carruthers being required to act as his own lawyer. While criminal defendants have a constitutional right to represent themselves, a judge must first determine whether they are competent to do so.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the right to counsel includes a corresponding right to waive that assistance, but such a decision must be made knowingly and intelligently. These rights are not mere formalities; they are essential to ensuring fairness in the justice system. It is not fair to force a defendant to accept a lawyer they do not want, but it is equally unfair to force them to represent themselves, as occurred in this case.
The outcome of the judge’s decision was deeply problematic. Attorneys who later represented Carruthers described his trial performance as “singularly inept, ineffective, and disastrous.”
For example, he did not challenge the medical examiner’s conclusion that the victims had been buried alive—a claim that was later disputed by forensic experts.
His later attorneys argued that his decisions during trial were driven by fear and paranoia rather than rational thinking. He focused on minor details while missing critical issues. A psychologist concluded that Carruthers was “the worst possible candidate” to act as his own defense attorney in a capital case.
The situation developed after Carruthers, who has long-documented mental health issues, struggled to work with a series of court-appointed lawyers.
One attorney withdrew due to a conflict of interest, while others were dismissed or allowed to withdraw because of Carruthers’ hostility, including alleged threats. After his final appointed lawyer, William Massey, requested to withdraw out of concern for safety, the judge noted that several qualified attorneys had already been removed from the case.
Despite Carruthers’ insistence that he wanted to continue working with Massey and had attempted to repair their relationship, and despite the role his mental illness played in these conflicts, the judge accused him of manipulating the system. The judge ruled that no further substitutions would be allowed and that Carruthers’ only remaining option was to represent himself.
The judge offered to provide him with legal rules and allow him to conduct the trial as an attorney would, including questioning witnesses and addressing the jury.
This offered little real support.
As one Supreme Court justice wrote nearly a century ago, in a capital case where a defendant cannot adequately defend themselves due to limitations such as mental incapacity or lack of legal knowledge, the court has a duty to appoint counsel to ensure due process.
That principle remains relevant today. No one, regardless of how difficult they may be as a client, should be forced to represent themselves in a trial where their life is at stake. Tony Carruthers deserved better.
About Post Author
