Something about this case unsettled those who followed it closely.
The timeline, the sudden revival of a procedure long dormant, and the silence surrounding the final moments have left many questioning whether everything unfolded as transparently as officials claim. As new details emerge, the story grows increasingly unusual.
Stephen Bryant, 44, convicted in a triple-fatality case, became the third person this year to undergo a rarely used legal procedure that South Carolina reinstated after roughly 15 years. After spending 21 years behind bars, Bryant chose this method over other options.
He had been found responsible for multiple deaths stemming from incidents in 2004. On November 14, the procedure was carried out, and officials confirmed it concluded at 6:05 p.m. local time. Bryant reportedly declined to make any final statement.
According to The Independent, his last meal consisted of a seafood stir-fry and chocolate cake. Court documents reveal that Bryant had entered one victim’s home and left a written note at the scene, while another person survived an encounter with him.
Attorney Bo King noted that Bryant’s past included a genetic condition and a challenging upbringing, compounded by his mother’s alcohol use, which allegedly caused lasting developmental difficulties and shaped his emotional struggles. Prior to 2025, this procedure had not been used in the U.S. since 2010, making this year’s activity a notable resurgence.
Bryant is now the third individual in South Carolina—and the nation—to undergo the process in 2025. Earlier in March, Brad Sigmon became the first person in 15 years to choose this method, with witnesses reporting it appeared faster than other alternatives. The following month, Mikal Mahdi underwent the same procedure, prompting his legal team to raise concerns over medical documentation. The South Carolina Department of Corrections dismissed any allegations of procedural errors.
Conclusion
Bryant’s case adds another layer to a year already marked by the return of this rarely employed legal method. With three individuals opting for it in 2025, questions linger about its reinstatement, efficiency, and the circumstances of its use.
While officials defend the process, critics continue to scrutinize it, sparking broader discussions about justice, transparency, and the evolving landscape of state-level legal procedures.