Milbarge has an interesting post up about the tradition of giving prisoner's a formal opportunity to say a few final words before they are executed by the state. (A list of the statements given by those recently killed by the state of Texas can be found here.)

Among other interesting thoughts, he wonders whether a state could constitutionally end the practice of final words:

I'm not saying that prisons should silence condemned inmates, just wondering why they provide for a final statement when and where they do. Why the formal process at the absolute last, and most tense, moment

Is it constitutionally required? I don't think so. It seems that such an argument could be based on the notion of "access to the courts" under the First Amendment. But, as I've noted, an attempt to halt the process is completely impractical once the inmate is horizontal. The prisoner would have had fair opportunity to petition the courts prior to the last minute. (I'm leaving aside a challenge to the method of execution that doesn't become apparent, or ripe, until the moment comes. Even then, it's doubtful that the inmate's formal last statement would make the difference, although a stray, unplanned comment might.)