No, it just said that they were sentenced to death. I meant did they ever recieve executive pardon or not? 
It isn’t in the statute. Therefore, you would be reading it into the statute as an exception for lawful killing.
Perhaps I overstated the case before. Serves me right for repeating what my crim law professor said 13 years ago.
OTOH, while it is clear that some states simply codified the common law definitions, some have used different definitions. Newgarth appears to fall into the latter category.
Got a cite for the reason for the “lawful” element? Do you see outside the bounds of law and under the color of law as exhausting the possibilities? If Newgarth had a statutory (or common law) necessity defense, and it was found to apply, would the killing be lawful? Under color of law? Within the bounds of the law?
What does its status as an affirmative defense have to do with anything? That really just shifts the burdens of raising the defense and proving it to the defendant. How is that procedural change relevant?
Bumped because the original links no longer work and the case is as topical as ever, especially in light of current debates about on what basis the US Supreme Court ought to rule on many decisions. Open-source link to the full article anyone?
Harvard Law Review’s copyright expires in 2044. They currently offer reprints of The Case of the Speluncean Explorers for $10.
It’s also on JSTOR
https://doi.org/10.2307/1336025
~Max