Russell Bucklew

Age, Biography and Wiki

Russell Bucklew (Russell Earl Bucklew) was born on 16 May, 1968 in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, is a United States Supreme Court case. Discover Russell Bucklew’s Biography, Age, Height, Physical Stats, Dating/Affairs, Family and career updates. Learn How rich is He in this year and how He spends money? Also learn how He earned most of networth at the age of 52 years old?

Popular AsRussell Earl Bucklew
Age52 years old
Zodiac SignTaurus
Born16 May 1968
Birthday16 May
BirthplaceCape Girardeau, Missouri

We recommend you to check the complete list of Famous People born on 16 May.
He is a member of famous with the age 52 years old group.

Russell Bucklew Height, Weight & Measurements

At 52 years old, Russell Bucklew height not available right now. We will update Russell Bucklew’s Height, weight, Body Measurements, Eye Color, Hair Color, Shoe & Dress size soon as possible.

Physical Status
HeightNot Available
WeightNot Available
Body MeasurementsNot Available
Eye ColorNot Available
Hair ColorNot Available

Dating & Relationship status

He is currently single. He is not dating anyone. We don’t have much information about He’s past relationship and any previous engaged. According to our Database, He has no children.

ParentsNot Available
WifeNot Available
SiblingNot Available
ChildrenNot Available

Russell Bucklew Net Worth

His net worth has been growing significantly in 2021-22. So, how much is Russell Bucklew worth at the age of 52 years old? Russell Bucklew’s income source is mostly from being a successful . He is from . We have estimated Russell Bucklew’s net worth, money, salary, income, and assets.

Net Worth in 2022$1 Million – $5 Million
Salary in 2022Under Review
Net Worth in 2022Pending
Salary in 2022Under Review
HouseNot Available
CarsNot Available
Source of Income

Russell Bucklew Social Network

WikipediaRussell Bucklew Wikipedia

Timeline of Russell Bucklew


Bucklew v. Precythe, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the standards for challenging methods of capital punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that when a convict sentenced to death challenges the State’s method of execution due to claims of excessive pain, the convict must show that other alternative methods of execution exist and clearly demonstrate they would cause less pain than the state-determined one. The Court’s opinion emphasized the precedential force of its prior decisions in Baze v. Rees and Glossip v. Gross.

The Court issued its opinion on April 1, 2019. In a 5–4 decision falling along ideological lines, the Court upheld the Eighth Circuit’s decision, affirming that Baze and Glossip provided the proper tests, and the evidence presented by Bucklew was not sufficient for either a facial or as-applied challenge to the Eighth Amendment. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, joined by the other four conservative Justices. Gorsuch wrote that the Eighth Amendment “forbids ‘cruel and unusual’ methods of capital punishment but does not guarantee a prisoner a painless death”; while a constitutionally-valid death sentencing like hanging would require a moment of intense pain, the Eighth Amendment would forbid methods like being drawn and quartered that “intensified the death sentence by ‘superadding’ terror, pain or disgrace.”

Gorsuch criticized the choice of death by inert gas asphyxiation, as it was neither a method prescribed by Missouri, and while it was an authorized method in three other states, no one has been put to death by the method to date. He also wrote that Bucklew, by this point, had spent twenty years on death row, and there is reasonable expectation by states to complete death sentences in a timely manner. Gorsuch argued that inmates that were seeking alternative methods under the Baze/Glossip test in good faith should readily be able to show evidence for their case, and considered that Bucklew’s continuing challenges were stalling tactics. Both Thomas and Kavanaugh wrote concurring opinions. Thomas argued that under the Eighth Amendment, the Court only had to show that Missouri’s choice of death sentence was not purposely designed to inflict additional pain on the inmate.

On June 25, 2019, the Missouri Supreme Court scheduled an execution date of October 1 for Bucklew. Missouri Governor Mike Parson denied clemency for Bucklew on the morning of his planned execution, and he was executed as scheduled on October 1, 2019. He was pronounced dead at 6:23 pm CST, eight minutes after being administered a lethal dose of pentobarbital. There were no reported complications with the execution. Corrections staff took precautions with Bucklew such as elevating the head of the gurney to prevent his choking on blood if a tumor were to burst and sedating him with Valium before the execution.


When Bucklew returned to court in 2015 he had amended his claim with the suggestion that lethal gas was a viable alternative to lethal injection, and later identified nitrogen as a viable alternative (e.g. via inert gas asphyxiation). This gave enough possibility of a triable remedy that allowed the case to proceed to an additional discovery phase. Bucklew had brought in an expert witness in anesthesiology who had affirmed that even after the injection Bucklew would still have brain function and could experience pain, based on a study done with horses. Eventually both the district and Eighth Circuit rejected these claims. The Supreme Court intervened a second time, in early 2018, while Justice Anthony Kennedy had still been serving, to put Bucklew’s case on hold and evaluate his case.


However, Missouri was forced to put its death penalties on hold, as one of the companies providing one of the injected drugs, sodium thiopental, had been pressured by anti-death penalty advocates and its dwindling supplies to stop selling the drug for such purposes. By 2012, Missouri had altered its process to a single drug, first to propofol and later to pentobarbital, and in 2014, began scheduling lethal injections, including for Bucklew. Bucklew sought a new lawsuit on challenging the use of the new drug for lethal injection on the basis that due his own personal health, suffering from cavernous hemangioma, that the injection could cause vascular tumors that would not allow the drug to properly circulate, and thus could experience tremendous pain before the drug shut down his systems. Bucklew asserted both facial and as-applied challenges.

While the district court denied his challenge, the Supreme Court agreed to put the execution on hold to allow his appeals to be heard. In the Eighth Circuit, the court rejected Bucklew’s facial challenge, as well as turned down his as-applied challenge as given but allowed Bucklew’s case to be reheard if he could demonstrate that there was a feasible alternative, as per Baze. Prior to the rehearing, the Supreme Court concluded in Glossip v. Gross in 2016 that affirmed the Baze requirement that an Eighth Amendment challenge to capital punishment puts the onus on inmates to show that there exists an alternative that is “feasible, readily implemented, and in fact significantly reduces a substantial risk of severe pain.”


Bucklew and other convicts with death sentences across the country attempted to legally challenge states’ refusal to use other protocols besides lethal injection through the courts, arguing that this was a violation of their Eighth Amendment rights. This ultimately resulted in Baze v. Rees, decided by the Supreme Court in 2008, where it was determined that lethal injection by drugs was constitutional and did not violate the Eighth Amendment. Further, Baze established a test for future challenges to methods of execution under the Eighth Amendment, in that inmates must show that a “feasible, readily implemented” alternative procedure that would “significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain”. With the decision in Baze, the Supreme Court invalidated the other ongoing challenges, including that of Bucklew, and ordered states who had already gained approval for lethal injection to resume executions.


In March 1996, Russell Earl Bucklew (May 16, 1968 – October 1, 2019) murdered Michael Sanders, with whom his former girlfriend Stephanie Ray took shelter after the breakup of their relationship, then kidnapped and raped Ray. He was sentenced to death by the state of Missouri in May 1997, and failed to have the conviction overturned in legal challenges which had completed by 2006. During this period, Missouri, as well as several other states, changed its protocol for death sentences by lethal injection to a combination of drugs. Missouri itself had to clear this change through the courts, so from 2006 through 2010, only two inmates were executed.

you may like: Ekaterina Enokaeva