While on death row, Hamm developed lymphatic cancer, which made it difficult to impossible to achieve the venous access necessary to administer the drugs used in lethal injections.

Cunningham was shot once in the temple with a .38 caliber pistol that had been stolen in a robbery committed by Hamm in Mississippi earlier the same day.

During the second phase of the trial, defense attorneys are able to present mitigating evidence to the jury, in order to argue that the defendant should be sentenced to life imprisonment instead of death.

[7] The defense counsel's failure to present this evidence to the jury became the subject of subsequent appeals, which raised the possibility that Hamm's attorney was so ineffective as to violate the Sixth Amendment.

On Friday December 3, the Alabama Attorney General's office submitted a “Proposed Memorandum Order” to the judge who was presiding over the case.

[7] The following Monday, less than a single business day after the proposed order had been submitted, the judge entered the proposed order as his ruling, without changing a single word or even striking out the word “proposed.”[7] The Brennan Center for Justice noted that it isn't clear from the record whether the judge who presided over Hamm's 1999 hearing “ever bothered to read the order.”[8] In 2015, when the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals was reviewing Hamm's case, the court included a footnote stating that “we take this opportunity to once again strongly criticize the practice of trial courts’ uncritical wholesale adoption of the proposed orders or opinions submitted by a prevailing party.” [8] Judge Adalberto Jordan of the Eleventh Circuit stated “I don’t believe for a second that that judge went through 89 pages in a day and then filed that as his own.

It just can’t be done.”[9] Judge Jordan added that “isn’t there something fishy about such a detailed opinion being signed on a Monday after being submitted the previous Friday?”[10] Another problem with the 1999 hearing occurred as a result of a change in counsel.

[12] Doctors discovered a large malignant tumor behind his left eye and determined that Hamm suffered from B-cell lymphoma.

[12][13] By late 2017, Hamm was suffering from inflamed lymph nodes in his neck, chest, and abdomen, symptoms which are associated with worsening lymphoma.

[3] Andrew Cohen, a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice noted that Hamm's case symbolizes the injustice of Alabama's death penalty system.

[20] The Special Rapporteurs expressed concern that the execution could amount to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, and possibly torture.

Included in Hamm's clemency petition were letters of support from family and friends, faith leaders, and community members.

The Human Rights Center of the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro also wrote a letter in support of clemency.

The group, which included former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Ernest “Sonny” Hornsby, former Court of Criminal Appeals Judge William Bowen, and two former presidents of the Alabama State Bar, warned “the prospect of the prolonged, agonizing execution of a very sick cancer patient cannot be a desirable one for anyone in our State, even those who support retention of the death penalty in general.

"[27] During the course of the execution attempt, correctional officers spent two and a half hours inserting needles into Hamm's legs and ankles, trying to get venous access.

[3] When attempts at peripheral venous access failed, members of the execution team began inserting needles into Hamm's groin in the hopes of finding a vein.

[30] In a press conference following the execution attempt, Jeff Dunn, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections, told reporters: "I wouldn’t necessarily characterize what we had tonight as a problem.

[35] The settlement “resolved all of the state and federal litigation” that was still pending in the case at the time and ended the efforts by Alabama to set a second execution date for Hamm.

[39][40] The Eleventh Circuit wrote that “The fact that Alabama zealously guards information about a matter of great public concern does not tip the scales against disclosure.

[41] The brief was filed on behalf of former federal and state judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement officials, who were urging the Supreme Court to prohibit the execution of Russell Bucklew.