Bronshtein v.
Horn leads off this edition. The
District Court in Bronstein had granted relief as to both conviction
(jury charge on first degree murder) and sentence (failing to
define
life as life without parole). Although the panel reinstated
Bronstein's conviction, the vacatuer of the death sentence must
remain as the prosecution put future dangerousness in play through its
questioning of witnesses and closing but the trial court refused to
give a "Simmons" charge that life in this case meant life without
parole.
Three other favorable dispositions are also noted. In Ex
Parte Dale Scheanette the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has
remanded, without substantive explanation, for an
evaluation of claims relating to ineffective assistance of
counsel. The Utah Supreme court in State
v. Lovell, permits
withdrawal of a guilty plea that subsequently resulted in a death
sentence as the thirty day right to withdrawal a plea under
state precedent begins to run after entry of the judgment of conviction
and not 30 days after the plea was taken, even where death is
imposed. Finally, in State
v. Fudge a seriously
fractured Arkansas Supreme Court appears to uphold relief on claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel, however see the disclaimer below.
Milton Mathis received a stay of his
April 20th execution death on an
order from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on claims relating to
mental retardation. In Arizona, Mohave County Superior
Court Judge Richard Weiss overturned the 1989 murder conviction of Clarence
David Hill, when DNA evidence surfaced that indicated Hill
had not killed his landlord, Dale Edmundson, who was burned alive
in Mohave County. In Kentucky, the civil trial on whether lethal
injection inflicts undue pain and suffering heard testimony that the
last person executed in that state was likely conscious during
the entire of the execution, but paralyzed.
This week's focus is a story of leaving death row, Deadman Walking
into Life, a letter by Gary Hart II. Hart 's death sentence
was invalidated in light of Roper v. Simmons.
Project Hope is
covering the inspiring story of Lisa Thomas who is walking from Alabama
to Washington D.C. Ms. Thomas is walking
to end the death penalty and hunger. She's being followed by a friend
in a van, covered with signs referring to both.
April
15 Richard
Longworth (South Carolina)
20 Douglas
Roberts (Texas)
21 Bill
Benefiel (Indiana)
Serious Execution Dates
April
27
Donald Jones (Missouri)
28 Mario
Centobie (Alabama / volunteer)
May
3 Lonnie Pursley (Texas)
6 Earl Richmond Jr. (North Carolina)
11 Michael Ross (Connecticut----volunteer)
12 George Miller (Oklahoma)
18 Bryan Wolfe (Texas)
19 Richard Cartwright (Texas)
19 Garry Allen (Oklahoma)
25 Gary Sterling (Texas)
Leading Cases
Bronshtein v. Horn, 2005 WL
852187 (3rd Cir.
4/14/2005) Order granting new
sentencing on the trial court's
failing to inform the jury that a Pennsylvania prisoner sentenced to
life imprisonment may not be paroled. Underlying conviction reinstated.
Decisions Reversing, Remanding or
Otherwise Holding Death in Check
Ex
Parte Dale Scheanette (Tex. Crim App. 04/13/05 ) (unpublished)
Remand had for
evaluation of ineffectiveness claims. State v. Lovell, 2005 WL 831749
(Utah 4/12/2005)
Supreme Court's Ostler
decision, that 30-day period for filing motion to withdraw plea "after
the entry of the plea" starts to run upon entry of judgment of
conviction on the plea rather than when plea is accepted by the court
and entered on the record, applied retroactively to defendant's motion
to withdraw guilty plea, which had been pending in the trial court when
Ostler was announced.
State v. Fudge, 2005 WL 852643
(Ark. 4/14/2005)
Relief upheld on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Note:
this opinion is so fractured and as someone who does not practice
in Arkansas it is quite possible that relief was actually denied,
although press accounts appear to back my interpretation of the case.
Decisions
Favoring Death
State
v. Brinkley, 2005
WL 735876 (Ohio
4/13/2005) (dissent) Relief denied, most notably, on failure to
severe charges of robbery occurring on different days; other acts
evidence (Rule 404(b)); and sufficiency of the purpose to escape
punishment aggravator.
Lyons v. Luebbers, 2005 WL 820279 (8th Cir 4/11/2005) Relief
denied. The Court report
notes "Lyons has procedurally defaulted on his claim that he was
not competent to stand trial for murder, but even if the claim was not
defaulted, the trial court's competency findings were supported by the
record; claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial concerning
counsel's failure to call state hospital doctors who had treated Lyons
before trial was properly rejected, as counsel's decision not to pursue
a diminished capacity defense was reasonable, based on the evidence;
Missouri courts did not unreasonably, nor incorrectly, apply United
States Supreme Court precedent in determining the trial court did not
err in denying suppression of Lyon's statements based on an alleged
inability to waive his right to counsel due to his incompetence; even
if the admission of Lyons' confession was error because of
incompetence, the error was harmless as the other admissible evidence
overwhelming demonstrated Lyons' guilt."
Dufour v. State,
2005 WL 851026, (Fla. 4/14/2005)
Relief denied on post-conviction appeal on claims relating to: "(1)
counsel rendered unconstitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel
in failing to investigate and present a voluntary intoxication defense
and in failing to strike jurors during the guilt phase; (2) penalty
phase counsel rendered unconstitutionally ineffective assistance of
counsel; (3) Dufour received an inadequate mental health evaluation;
(4) Dufour was prejudiced by the cumulative impact of improper
evidence; (5) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object when
Dufour's sentencing jury was misled by comments, questions and
instructions that inaccurately diluted the jury's sense of
responsibility for their role in the sentencing process; (6) the State
committed fundamental error by destroying exculpatory physical
evidence; (7) Florida’s death penalty statute is unconstitutional; (8)
section 921.141(5) of the Florida Statutes is facially vague and
overbroad; (9) Rule 4-3.5(d)(4) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar
prohibiting Dufour's lawyers from interviewing jurors is
unconstitutional; and (10) the combination of procedural and
substantive errors cumulatively deprived Dufour of a fair trial."
Relief also denied on habeas claims "(1) appellate counsel rendered
ineffective assistance on direct appeal; (2) the cold, calculated, and
premeditated jury instruction is unconstitutionally vague and
overbroad; (3) Dufour's death sentence is unconstitutional because he
did not have a jury verdict on each element of the capital offense; and
(4) the combination of procedural and substantive errors cumulatively
deprived Dufour of a fair trial."
State v.
Brown, 2005 WL 832569 (La. 4/12/2005) Relief denied
on: "1) whether the trial court's dismissal of defendant's retained
counsel undermined defendant's right to counsel, 2) whether the trial
court erred in failing to suppress defendant's custodial statements, 3)
whether the trial court erred in failing to suppress witness'
identification of defendant, 4) whether lack of funding during
pre-trial hearings compromised defendant's rights of due process and
equal protection, 5) whether evidence presented at trial was sufficient
to establish defendant's identity and thereby support his conviction
for first degree murder, 6) whether the trial court's aquiesence to
"hybrid representation" undermined defendant's right to
self-representation, 7) whether defendant proved brain damage or mental
defect sufficient to render his execution violative of the Eight
Amendment."
Ex parte Charles Dean Hood - (04/13/05) Post-card denial.
Amador v. Dretke, 2005 WL 827092 (W.D.Tex. 4/11/2005) Relief denied but COA
granted. COA granted on whether the show-up lineup used here
impermissibly tainted subsequent identifications and "appellate
counsel's failure to present a point of
error on direct appeal arguing that the trial court erroneously
admitted testimony regarding Petitioner's oral statement on April 14,
1994 identifying the caliber of the guns used during the shootings."
Nealy v. Dretke, 2005
WL 887795 (N.D.Tex. 4/13/2005)
Report and
recommendation suggesting denial of relief on claims including: "(1) that there is
insufficient evidence to support Petitioner's conviction for capital
murder, (2) that the trial court failed to inform the
jury of parole eligibility, and (3) that there is
insufficient evidence to support the special issue verdict on future
dangerousness. Petitioner also contends that he is entitled to an
evidentiary hearing."
Notable Noncapital Cases
State v. Castagna, 2005 WL 831431 (N.J.Super.A.D
4/12/2005) Upholding admissibility of polygraphs for limited
purposes on cross-examination by the defense.
Excerpts from Leading Cases
Bronshtein v. Horn, 2005 WL
852187 (3rd Cir.
4/14/2005) Order granting new
sentencing on the trial court's
failing to inform the jury that a Pennsylvania prisoner sentenced to
life imprisonment may not be paroled but reinstates the underlying
conviction upheld
The Commonwealth's remaining contention is that the prosecution's
arguments and the testimony that it elicited at the penalty phase did
not put the issue of Bronshtein's future dangerousness at issue in the
way needed to trigger Simmons and the subsequent related cases of
Shafer v. South Carolina, 532 U.S. 36, 121 S.Ct. 1263, 149 L.Ed.2d 178
(2001), and Kelly v. South Carolina, 534 U.S. 246, 122 S.Ct. 726, 151
L.Ed.2d 670 (2002). Because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not
adjudicate this claim on the merits, the standards of review set out in
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) are inapplicable. Furthermore, because the
Commonwealth does not argue that either Shafer or Kelly announced "new
rules" within the meaning of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct.
1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), we need not and do not decide whether
such an argument would have merit, see Horn v. Banks, 536 U.S. 266,
271, 122 S.Ct. 2147, 153 L.Ed.2d 301 (2002), and we consider Shafer and
Kelly to be applicable in this appeal.
In Simmons, the prosecutor explicitly argued that the jury should
impose a death sentence in order to protect society from the defendant.
The prosecutor stated that a death sentence would be "a response of
society to someone who is a threat" and would be "an act of
self-defense." 512 U.S. at 157. The Supreme Court held that under these
circumstances the trial judge was required to instruct the jury that
the defendant, if not sentenced to death, would have received a
sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The
plurality opinion stated that "where the defendant's future
dangerousness is at issue, and state law prohibits the defendant's
release on parole, due process requires that the sentencing jury be
informed that the defendant is parole ineligible." Id. at 156 (emphasis
added). However, as we noted in Rompilla v. Horn, 355 F.3d 233, 265 (3d
Cir.), cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 125 S.Ct. 27, 159 L.Ed.2d 857
(2004), Justice O'Connor's controlling concurrence may be read as
adopting a narrower holding, namely, that the dispositive question is
not whether a defendant's future dangerous is "at issue" but whether
"the prosecution argues that the defendant will pose a threat to
society in the future." 512 U.S. at 177 (O'Connor, J., concurring in
the judgment). See also Shafer, 532 U.S. at 49.
*14 As we also observed in Rompilla, 355 F.3d at 266, the holding in
Simmons was arguably broadened in Kelly. There the prosecutor stated in
his penalty phase opening: "I hope you never in your lives again have
to experience what you are experiencing right now. Being some thirty
feet away from such a person. Murderer." 534 U.S. at 248. The
prosecution then presented evidence that while in prison, Kelly had
made a knife, had attempted to escape from prison, and had planned to
hold a female guard as a hostage. See id. The state also brought out
evidence of "Kelly's sadism at an early age, and his inclination to
kill anyone who rubbed him the wrong way." Id. at 248-49 (citation
omitted). During its closing argument, the state referred to Kelly as
"the butcher of Batesburg," "Bloody Billy," and "Billy the Kid." Id. at
249- 50. In addition, the prosecutor told the jury that "Kelly doesn't
have any mental illness. He's intelligent .... He's quick-witted.
Doesn't that make somebody a little more dangerous .... [D]oesn't that
make him more unpredictable for [the victim] .... murderers will be
murderers. And he is the cold-blooded one right over there." Id. at 250.
The Kelly Court concluded that the trial judge had an obligation to
give a parole ineligibility instruction. The Court stated that "[t]he
prosecutor accentuated the clear implication of future dangerousness
raised by the evidence and placed the case within the four corners of
Simmons." Id. at 255. The Court observed that "[e]vidence of future
dangerousness under Simmons is evidence with a tendency to prove
dangerousness in the future; its relevance to that point does not
disappear merely because it might support other inferences or be
described in other terms." Id. at 254. The Court also acknowledged that
"it may well be that the evidence in a substantial proportion, if not
all, capital cases will show a defendant likely to be dangerous in the
future." Id. at 254 n. 4. But the Court declined to decide whether a
defendant is entitled to a parole ineligibility instruction "when the
State's evidence shows future dangerousness but the prosecutor does not
argue it." Id.
[6] In the present case, the prosecution not only put Bronshtein's
future dangerousness "at issue" but "argue[d] that the defendant
[would] pose a threat to society in the future." Simmons, 512 U .S. at
177 (O'Connor, J., concurring in the judgment). During its closing
argument at the penalty stage, the prosecutor made the following
statements:
Ladies and gentlemen, the medical testimony in this case was
significant because it tells you something about the psyche or persona
of this man. He can't conform to what is required in society. The
doctors have told you that he's anti-social. He's prone to lying. He's
prone to stealing. He's prone to living a life of crime.
Whatever the seeds were that got him
there, they're planted, and that tree has grown. He's grown into a
twenty-two-year-old person now regardless of how the seeds were planted.
*15 You have to take a look at what effect that has had and what effect
it had at the time he committed these crimes. The doctors have told you
he's a man that can't conform to the needs of society.
App. VI at 1909-10 (emphasis added).
Even without considering "the medical testimony" to which the
prosecutor referred, it is evident that these comments, although more
clinical than those in Simmons, conveyed the message that Bronshtein
presented a threat of future lawlessness. We agree with the District
Court's evaluation of these comments:
[T]he references to Bronshtein's
inability to 'conform to what is required in society' and the fact that
he was 'anti-social,' in the context of the present and the future by
reference to what Bronshtein is "going to" and "prone to" do, make
clear that the Commonwealth was suggesting to the jury that it should
impose the death penalty because of Bronshtein's inability to function
in society in the future. The prosecutor's assertion that [Bronshtein]
was "prone to living a life of crime," when placed in the context of
the stark choice of life in prison or death, would suggest to any juror
that petitioner would pose a danger to society if he was released from
prison. The none-too-subtle implication of these arguments is that
Bronshtien should be put to death because if he were ever released, he
could not "conform to the needs of society,' and was "going to"
continue "living a life of crime" and engaging in dangerous, violent
conduct.
Dist. Ct. Op. at 36-37. Thus, the
import of the penalty phase closing in itself is clear enough.
When the "the medical testimony" to which the prosecutor referred in
the closing is also taken into account, the significance of the
prosecutor's statements becomes even clearer. At the penalty phase,
Bronshtein called a psychologist, Gerald Cooke, to testify to
"psychological mitigating factors." App. VI at 1835. Dr. Cooke
testified that Bronshtein suffered from paranoid personality disorder,
anti-social personality disorder, and depression. See id . at 1838,
1840. On cross-examination, the Commonwealth elicited from Dr. Cooke a
litany of dangerous tendencies that persons with these disorders often
exhibit. The questioning went as follows:
Q: One of the features of [a person
with an anti-social personality disorder] is he tends to be
irresponsible; correct?
A: Well, one of the features of anti-social personality can be
irresponsibility. I don't know if that's necessarily a criteria that
fits him. He fits a number of the other criteria.
Q: It can be anti-social behavior; correct?
A: Absolutely.
Q: Including criminal activity; correct?
A: Correct.
Q: Lying?
A: Yes.
Q: Stealing?
A: Yes.
Q: Fighting?
A: Yes.
Q: Being very aggressive; correct?
A: Yes.
Q: They can be prone to being irritable; correct? A: Yes.
Q: Prone to getting repeatedly into physical fights; correct?
*16 A: Can be....
Q: Failed to conform to social norms; correct?
A: That is true.
Q: Repeatedly can perform anti-social acts; correct?
A: Yes....
Q: They also tend to express no remorse, don't they?
A: That's true.
Q: No remorse about the effects of their behavior on other people?
A: They often don't have insight to the effects of their behavior on
themselves or on other people.
Q: In other words, a lot of people who have anti-social personality
disorders can't play by the rules in a civilized society; correct?
A: True.
Id. at 1855-1858.
The prosecutor then questioned Dr. Cooke regarding Bronshtein's
paranoid personality disorder:
Q: Dr. Cooke, with regard to the
paranoid personality disorder, they're also people that can react
quickly with anger; correct?
A: Yes. Q: And are likely to counterattack if they feel threatened;
correct?
A: They are likely to see themselves as being threatened, and many of
them sort of follow the kind of attitude that the best defense is
offense.
Q: In other words, they're more likely to feel threatened than the
normal person; correct?
A: True, and that's what being paranoid means.
Q: Because they're more likely to feel threatened, they're more likely
to counterattack because of the threat they feel; correct?
A: That is true.
Q: They can bear grudges for a long time; correct?
A: True.
Q: And they can even get to the point where they never forgive
different insults people have done to them; correct?
A: True.
Q: They're viewed as secretive?
A: Yes.
Q: Devious?
A. Sometimes.
Q: Scheming?
A: Sometimes.
Q: Have great difficulties accepting self-criticism? A: That's true.
Q: Dr. Cooke, Mr. Bronshtein has a combination of the two--paranoid
personality disorder and anti-social personality disorder--doesn't he?
A: And depression.
...
Q: Doctor, it's certainly a potentially lethal combination of
personality disorders, isn't it?
A: Could be.
Id. at 1858-1860.
The Commonwealth also presented rebuttal evidence through its own
mental health expert, Dr. Timothy J. Michaels. The Commonwealth
elicited the following testimony from Dr. Michaels:
Q: [W]hat is your agreement or disagreement with the diagnoses which
[Dr. Cooke] has made?
A: ... I certainly agree with the anti-social personality disorder.
What that means is, this young man has gotten in trouble throughout his
life. He doesn't learn by experience. He's impulsive. He continues to
get in trouble within the prison system. He acts out, justifies his
behavior. So even after he has been incarcerated, there's ongoing
difficulties.
... When you're anti-social, you don't follow the rules. You don't
learn by experience. You think you're right and other people are
wrong....
I also agree with the paranoid personality disorder....
He's paranoid. Basically, he's looking over his shoulder. He doesn't
trust people, doesn't trust most people....
*17 This combination of not trusting people and then acting out, not
following the rules is an explosive combination in my opinion.... So I
see that as a serious, very serious behavioral problem that this young
man has.
...
Q: Dr. Michaels, what findings did you make with regard to this
personality disorder or these personality disorders with having remorse?
A: ... Individuals who are anti-social don't have remorse. They don't
learn. They're not sorry for their behavior. They don't learn from
experience. So they do this over again.
And instead of being remorseful, unfortunately there is acceleration of
behavior. I think I can get away with it--even though you get caught. I
can outsmart the people[.]
App. VI at 1869-71, 1874.
Taken together, the testimony of Drs. Cooke and Michaels suggested the
following: that Bronshtein's "combination of personality disorders"
could be "lethal" or "explosive"; that he was prone to lie, scheme,
steal, fight, and act very aggressively; that he was much more likely
than a normal person to distrust others, bear grudges, feel threatened,
and respond with a counterattack; that he was unable to "play by the
rules in a civilized society"; that he was probably remorseless, and
unlikely to learn from experience, and thus prone to commit the same
crimes "over again"; and that there would probably be an "acceleration"
of his anti-social behavior.
The prosecution's penalty phase closing must be viewed as incorporating
these points. As noted, the prosecutor asked the jury to recall "the
medical testimony," referred twice to what "the doctors" had told the
jury, and summarized that testimony as saying that Bronshtein is
"anti-social," "prone to living a life of crime," and "can't conform to
the needs of society." In any realistic sense of the concept, the
prosecutor "argue[d] that the defendant [would] pose a threat to
society in the future." Simmons, 512 U.S. at 177 (O'Connor, J.,
concurring in the judgment). And it goes without saying that the
Bronshtein's future dangerousness was put at issue within the meaning
of Kelly. In the words of that decision, "[t]he prosecutor accentuated
the clear implication of future dangerousness raised by the evidence."
534 U.S. at 255. We thus reject the Commonwealth's argument that the
prosecution's presentation at the penalty phase was insufficient to
trigger the obligation imposed by Simmons, Shafer, and Kelly.
Having considered and rejected the Commonwealth's arguments regarding
Simmons and its progeny, we have before us no ground for reversing the
order of the District Court insofar as it held that Bronshtein's death
sentence is unconstitutional under those precedents. In light of our
decision on this issue, we have no occasion to decide whether, as the
District Court held, that sentence is unconstitutional for the
additional reason that the jury was improperly instructed regarding the
aggravating factor set out in 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 9711(d)(6)
(commission of homicide while perpetrating felony) and that there was
insufficient evidence to prove that factor.
Focus
This week's focus is a story of leaving
death row, Deadman
Walking into Life., a letter by Gary Hart II.
DEADMAN WALKING INTO LIFE
Every day brings the possibility of
change, it doesn’t matter who we are or where we are, life- changing
moments happen daily. One night I’m trying to go to sleep while
thinking of the death sentence that’s chasing my last breath and the
next morning I’m spared.
March 1st, 2005, shortly
after 9:00 a.m., I was returning from the death row exercise yard when
an officer told me to call my lawyer. Immediately the fear gripped me,
had something happened to my family? What was wrong? A neighbor said,
I hope it’s good news, and I quickly replied, I just hope that
it’s not bad news. He said, what’s the difference? To that
I stated, bad news involves my family. He got the point and I
dialed the number with speed and nervousness.
My lawyer answered excitedly and told me
that the U.S. Supreme Court had affirmed the Simmons v. Roper case,
which meant it’s unconstitutional to execute juvenile offenders, those
under 18 years old at the time of their crimes. My heart rate slowed
and the fear was leaving my body, nothing was wrong with my family and
I was getting off death row. Three of my lawyers were on the phone, all
excited as children on Christmas morning, and they shared how my mother
screamed and praised God upon hearing the news. While on the phone, I
had to pause to answer another of Alabama’s juvenile offenders, a total
of 13. He yelled through the tunnels behind our cells and told me he’d
heard the news on the radio. So I was not dreaming, this was really
happening. The joy spread throughout death row and everyone was talking
at once.
For the last 15 ½ years I have
thought my name would be amongst the dead. To not be facing death by
the hands of the State is a very strange feeling. The only way to
describe it is relief. Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in
1976 the U.S. has killed 900+ men and women, including 22 juveniles and
several of my friends. I have read about or known men that had less
evidence against them than myself, surely I’d follow in their
footsteps? Walking the walk of hope was difficult but I tried to follow
the examples set around me, all the time thinking I was doomed—that my
death was only a matter of time.
Now I awake knowing my thoughts of the
future aren’t just wishful thinking. Unless my health fails me or
something else cuts my life short I can live to be an old man. Such
possibilities never existed on death row. I no longer have to imagine
saying good-bye to my mother on the day of the execution, which was my
greatest fear. I can stop worrying about my death killing my mother,
who developed hypertension and depression over the years. Maybe her
next trip to the doctor will show signs of improvement.
My new sentence is life without any
chance of parole, this sentence was never my goal but I can’t help
smiling over the life part. The Simmons ruling saved 72 men
nationwide, but in reality the decision saved many more. There are
teenagers in jail who won’t face capital punishment, former death row
inmates not counted in the 72 because their sentence or conviction had
been recently overturned and countless numbers of reckless teenage boys
who haven’t committed their crimes yet. Five judges saved all of us.
What a difference a day makes!
What kept me alive up to this point was
the dedication of my attorneys, fighting the State of Alabama for
everything. Every page in my briefs! Every issue! Every day! Thank you!
The only thing that kept me sane was the love shown to me by my mother
and friends, those inside and outside this prison. Thank you!
I’d also like to thank the international
and national abolitionist movements for everything they have done for
all of us. Without everyone involved none of this would have been
possible. There is so much left to be done and working together we will
accomplish all of our goals. I say we because I will never
forget where I came from and will continue to do my part in this
struggle. Death row is where I’ve spent almost half of my life and the
people here have helped me become a man. Everyday of my life will be a
testament to the world about the value of rehabilitation and the human
spirit.
Nebraska Supreme Court to Hear Electric Chair Challenge
The Nebraska Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether the state's
use of the electric chair is cruel and unusual punishment. The case,
brought by death row inmate Carey Dean Moore, will be heard on May 5.
Every other death penalty state has adopted lethal injection as an
alternative method of execution. A bill to offer lethal injection in
Nebraska remains stalled in the state's Senate Judiciary Committee.
Three people have been put to death in Nebraska since executions
resumed in 1994. Coroner reports document that one of the men, John
Joubert, suffered a 4-inch brain blister on the top of his head and
blistering on both sides of his head above his ears. The reports note
that another man, Robert Williams, had a "bubble blister" the size of a
baseball on his left calf and had pronounced "charring" on both sides
of a knee and the top of his head. A witness to Williams' execution
reported seeing smoke coming from his head.
Moore's attorney, Alan Peterson, notes, "Now, no other state mandates
that humans face the horror of death by internal burning and shock,
with the well-known history of bungled, smoking failures of the
century-old technique. [Electrocution] involves more than mere
extinguishment of life and will subject defendant to needless agony,
physical suffering, torture, mutilation, disfigurement, and
degradation.... No longer can this state tolerate the form of
punishment now almost universally recognized to be beyond the bounds of
minimum human dignity, civility, and decency." (Associated Press,
April 19, 2005).
Georgia's Supreme Court ruled that the electric chair violated the
state's constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment in
2001. A few states allow inmates to choose the electric chair rather
than lethal injection as their method of execution. See Methods of
Execution.
Attorneys Seek DNA Testing In Case of Executed Texas Man
Attorney Barry Scheck plans to ask Texas Governor Rick Perry to order
DNA testing in the case of Claude Jones, who maintained his innocence
until his execution in December 2000. Scheck, co-founder of the
Innocence Project, says Jones' conviction was largely based on dubious
evidence. The state's case against him included testimony from an
accomplice linking Jones to the crime and the report of a state
forensic scientist who examined a one-inch length of hair found at the
crime scene. The scientist said that it was similar to Jones'
hair using microscopic hair comparison, a faulty test that has been
replaced by the more precise science of DNA testing. Accomplice
testimony has been proven to be often unreliable.
Scheck said that he may not necessarily be able to prove Jones'
innocence, but this case raises the question of whether then-Governor
George W. Bush knew of Jones' request for DNA testing when he refused
to grant a stay of execution. Files uncovered by the Chicago
Tribune note that Bush's staff inquired about the hair comparison as
they prepared to present their recommendation to the Governor, but the
final summary of the case that was sent to Bush did not mention Jones'
request for DNA testing of the hair. DNA testing after an execution is
rare. (Chicago Tribune, April 18, 2005). See Innocence.
Lethal Injection To Be Examined In Kentucky
A Franklin County, Kentucky, court will hear arguments beginning April
18 to determine whether the state's lethal injection procedures rise to
the level of cruelty that is forbidden by the U.S. and state
constitutions. In November 2004, the same court cited questions about
the lethal injection process when it issued a stay of execution for
Thomas Clyde Bowling, Jr. just days before his scheduled execution.
Attorneys for Bowling and death row inmate Ralph Baze, who is also a
plaintiff in the lawsuit, now plan to present an anesthesiologist, a
pharmacologist, and 18 other witnesses whose testimony will challenge
the state's lethal injection procedures, the drugs used in these
executions, and the training of the personnel who carry them out.
Currently, Kentucky uses a series of three drugs during lethal
injections that are designed to relax and put inmates to sleep before
killing them. Bowling's attorney plans to present evidence that the
first drugs do not get into the blood stream before the killing drugs
are administered, leading to a "death that is pure torture." Among the
evidence presented will be an autopsy report for Eddie Lee Harper, the
state's first and only inmate to be executed by lethal injection.
(Associated Press, April 14, 2005). Similar concerns about lethal
injection were recently raised in a study that was published in the
British medical journal The Lancet. See more about this study. See
Methods of Execution.
Eric Rudolph Pleads Guilty to Terrorist Bombings in Exchange for Life
Without Parole Sentences
In separate plea agreements with the federal government and Georgia
prosecutors, Eric Rudolph admitted killing two people and injuring 150
others by carrying out a series bombings at a gay nightclub, abortion
clinics, and the 1996 Olympics, and will serve four consecutive life
sentences without the possibility of parole. Prosecutors spared Rudolph
from execution in exchange for his guilty pleas and his revealing the
location of about 250 pounds of dynamite he had hidden in the North
Carolina mountains. Prior to his capture in 2003, Rudolph spent over
five years hiding from authorities in the Appalachian mountains of
North Carolina.
"The many victims of Eric Rudolph's terrorist attacks in Atlanta and
Birmingham can rest assured that Rudolph will spend the rest of his
life behind bars. The best interests of justice are served by
resolution of this case and by the skillful operation that secured the
dangerous explosives buried in North Carolina," said U.S. Attorney
General Alberto R. Gonzales. U.S. Attorney David E. Nahmias later
added, "There will be no further delays in obtaining justice for the
public and the many victims of his terrorist activity." (Washington
Post, April 6, 2005 and New York Times, April 12, 2005). See Life
Without Parole; also Federal Death Penalty.
The first case to be argued today is No. 04-637, Bradshaw v. Stumpf.
Bradshaw -- which is the first of two capital cases out of the
Sixth Circuit to be argued this sitting (the other one being Bell
v. Thompson, to be argued next week) -- presents questions
regarding the voluntariness of the respondent's plea and whether the
Due Process Clause requires respondent's guilty plea to be vacated when
the state later prosecutes a co-defendant using evidence that is
inconsistent with respondent's guilt. Douglas Cole, the State Solicitor
of Ohio, will argue on behalf of the petitioner, while Alan Freedman of
the Midwest Center for Justice will argue on behalf of the respondent.
You can read Danielle Goldstein's excellent summary of the case,
which was posted last week on SCOTUSBlog, here.
The second case to be argued today is No. 04-563, Mayle v.
Felix, in which the Court will consider the application to
federal habeas corpus cases of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c),
which provides that an amendment to a pleading "relates back" to the
original pleading when "the claim or defense asserted in the amended
pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth
or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading.
Felix was convicted of first-degree murder in a California state
court. After his direct appeals were unsuccessful, he filed a timely
pro se habeas petition in federal district court in which he alleged
that the admission at his trial of videotaped statements by a key
prosecution witness violated the Confrontation Clause. Approximately
eight months later, and after the AEDPA's statute of limitations had
expired, Felix -- now represented by counsel -- filed an amended habeas
petition that included both the original Confrontation Clause claim and
the further claim that his Fifth Amendment right was violated by the
admission at trial of an allegedly coerced confession made by Felix
himself during an interview with the police.
The district court held that Felix's coerced confession claim did
not arise out of the "same core of facts" as his Confrontation Clause
claim and was thus time-barred under the AEDPA. The Ninth Circuit
reversed. It construed Rule 15(c)'s reference to the same "conduct,
transaction, or occurrence" more broadly, holding that in habeas cases
the relevant "transaction" is the "trial and conviction under attack."
California Deputy Attorney General Mathew Chan will argue on behalf
of the petitioner, and Assistant to the Solicitor General Lisa Blatt
will argue on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae in support
of the petitioner. Assistant Federal Public Defender David Porter will
argue on behalf of the respondent.
Press Release from People of Faith Against the Death
Penalty0
on
April 21st, 2005
Alabama Woman Walking
to Washington for End to
Death Penalty, Hunger
APRIL 21, 2005 — An Alabama woman is entering North Carolina today on a
925-mile walk to Washington, D.C., to call for an end to the death
penalty and hunger in the United States.
Lisa Thomas, 52, the manager of a food bank in Brewton, Ala., has found
both hospitality and hostility on her trip, and says she was almost run
down by a pick-up truck in South Carolina, but she says she is
continuing on her journey to try to make a difference.
“Thousands are seeing my signs,” she said from her cell phone on Route
29 near the North Carolina-South Carolina border today. “If it makes no
more difference than that, it makes a difference.”
PFADP members and supporters can offer their welcome and hospitality by
calling Thomas on her cell phone, (251) 752-8433.
A friend is following her in a small van plastered with signs calling
attention to hunger and the death penalty.
Thomas said the signs apparently provoked two young men to
“deliberately” turn the wheel of their pick-up and drive directly at
her, cursing. She screamed and quickly moved out of the way, and the
truck continued down the road.
Others have glared at her, she said. “If looks could kill, we’d be
dead.”
But she has also spoken with many supporters. In Athens, Ga., she said,
she had a long talk with a young woman who was working in a gas
station.
She also says she knows she has support of another kind. “I have faith
that God will see me through.”
Some Catholic nuns in Alabama, friends of hers, told her to remember
Pope John Paul II, who had recently died, in her prayers. “I have Jesus
walking on my right, and the pope on my left,” said Thomas, a Baptist.
She expects the walk through North Carolina will take her about 10
days, through Gastonia, Charlotte, Concord, Salisbury, Thomasville,
Greensboro, and Reidsville. Route 29 parallels Interstate 85 until
Greensboro, and when the roads merge and become dangerous, she will
ride in the van. She and her friend sleep overnight in rest areas or
parking lots in the van. She will enter Virginia in Danville.
If you live along or near Route 29 in North Carolina, PFADP encourages
you to give Lisa a call and consider offering hospitality at your
church or home.
Her work with the poor and elderly at the food bank inspired her to
walk to Washington to bring attention to hunger in America, but it was
a recent meeting in Birmingham that encouraged her to add the death
penalty to her cause.
Someone mentioned at the meeting that Alabama was about to execute a
man on death row. There was little reaction in the group, she said.
“No one was concerned we were going to kill this man. I thought ‘Wow,
we are nonchalant about the death penalty.’”
She hopes her walk will “stir people up.”
To follow Thomas on her journey, visit a weblog by Project Hope to
Abolish the Death Penalty at http://www.phadp.org/blog/.
People of Faith Against the Death Penalty
110 W. Main St., Suite 2-G • Carrboro, NC 27510
Tel 919.933.7567 • Fax 919.933.5611
info@pfadp.org • www.pfadp.org
People of Faith Against the Death Penalty is an interfaith membership
organization whose mission is to educate and mobilize faith communities
to act to abolish the death penalty in the United States. PFADP relies
on its members for support. Annual membership rates are:
$25/individual, $40/household, and $100/congregation, or whatever
amount is affordable. Checks should be made to “PFADP” and sent to the
above address.
Welcome to
North Carolina
on
April 21st, 2005
Email to NCADP Affiliates:
Thank you, People of Faith Against the Death Penalty for your warm
welcome of Lisa Thomas to North Carolina. She told me that soon after I
had called her to tell her that I had sent out an email to the group,
her phone rang. Lisa is fairly new to abolition, we met last November,
so I told her what wonderful work you do in North Carolina. We thank
you for being an inspiration to us here in Alabama and for welcoming
Lisa.
Gratefully,
Esther and the Board of Project Hope to Abolish the Death Penalty
Lisa received a warm welcome to North Carolina by People of Faith
Against the Death Penalty almost the minute after a request had gone
out to NCADP affiliates. We are so grateful! Help has been promised
with publicity and housing along the way. Lisa is encouraged and
upbeat, even the cost per minutes on her cell phone went down in North
Carolina! Thank you from Lisa, thank you from all of us! It feels good
to know that there are likeminded friends out there!
Goodbye to
South Carolina!
on
April 20th, 2005
Lisa will be out of South Carolina tomorrow and is glad to leave that
state behind her. Besides Sunday’s incident when a couple of guys tried
to run her down with their pick up truck, there have been repeated
moments of rudeness and hostility on the part of young white males.
But she is half way and that is encouraging. And today we contacted the
National Coalition Against the Death Penalty where David Elliot was
kind enough to link our blog to theirs. I am hoping that some kind
abolitionists in North Carolina and beyond will welcome Lisa as she
comes through their state and into the home stretch.
NCADP Blog
Supports Lisa
on
April 20th, 2005
Abolish the Death Penalty
Abolish the Death Penalty is a blog dedicated to…well, you know. The
purpose of Abolish is to tell the personal stories of crime victims and
their loved ones, people on death row and their loved ones and those
activists who are working toward abolition. You may, from time to time,
see news articles or press releases here, but that is not the primary
mission of Abolish the Death Penalty. Our mission is to put a human
face on the debate over capital punishment.
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
A woman walks
Today, at this moment, a woman is walking. She is walking against
hunger. She is walking against the death penalty. She started in
Brewton, Alabama. That was about 400 miles ago. A few days ago, she was
in Atlanta. By tomorrow evening, she should be in North Carolina.
Walking. Walking against hunger. Walking against the death penalty.
Her name is Lisa Thomas. She is one brave woman.
Esther Brown of Project Hope to Abolish the Death Penalty out of
Alabama is following Lisa with her blog. Go here to check out this
remarkable journey. Also, be sure and click back to the March archives
of Esther’s blog to see pictures of Lisa on her amazing adventure.
# posted by David Elliot @ 3:20 PM 0 comments
Monday, April 18, 2005
A Friend Asks
for Help
on
April 18th, 2005
Angie L. Reese-Hawkins
President & CEO
Dear President Reese-Hawkins,
I am writing to see if it’s possible for the national office of the
YMCA to provide shelter for anti-hunger activist Lisa Thomas during her
protest walk from her hometown of Brewton, Alabama to Washington, D.C.
Ms. Thomas wants to bring attention to issues that critically affect
the poor in Alabama: lack of funding for the hungry, the highest rate
of taxation of those impoverished, and a death penalty that is meted
out in a manner that is highly discriminatory against African Americans
and without regard to the mental state of the inmate or even new DNA
evidence offered by the convicted. Attached below some media coverage
and a blog history from the Alabama based non-profit organization,
Project Hope To Abolish the Death Penalty.
Ms. Thomas is currently 20 miles south of Greenville, South Carolina.
The cell phone that was donated to her and she carries as she walks is
(251) 752-8433.
The website for my organization is www.alarise.org . My phone number is
800 832- 9060.
Thank you,
Zack Carter, Organizer,
Alabama Arise
Brewton woman goes the distance again
Lisa Thomas will head to Montgomery, then Washington, D.C., to make a
statement about poverty, tax reform and capital punishment
Sunday, March 27, 2005
By RENEE BUSBY
Staff Reporter
Lisa Thomas is on the road again.
The Brewton woman who walked from her hometown to Montgomery last year
to hand-deliver a letter to Gov. Bob Riley about the need to help the
working poor and elderly is pounding the pavement again to get her
message heard.
But this time her trip won’t end at the capital in Montgomery.
After a Monday morning meeting with Riley, Thomas plans to leave
Montgomery on foot headed to the nation’s Capitol to deliver a letter
to President George Bush.
“I’ve got some issues to try to get resolved,” Thomas, 52, said last
week, talking on her cell phone as she walked along Highway 31 to
Montgomery. “Sometimes that takes doing something totally crazy.”
She’s hoping to make the 814-mile trek to Washington by walking 20
miles a day — making it there in about 40-50 days. Thomas said she is
walking instead of driving to emphasize that hunger is a problem in
this country.
Thomas is director of Carlisa Inc., a non-profit organization she
established in April 2002 to help feed the elderly and needy.
Though Thomas has no appointment with the president, she said she wants
to deliver a letter to Bush and talk to him about hunger in the United
States.
“I know firsthand what the elderly and the poor are going through,” she
said. “There have been times when I didn’t know where my next meal was
coming from or where I was going to sleep at night.”
Thomas has expanded the scope of her mission, adding tax reform and a
moratorium on capital punishment to her list of causes.
“It takes extraordinary people to do extraordinary things,” said Esther
Brown, executive secretary/treasurer of Alabama’s Project Hope to
Abolish the Death Penalty, an organization founded by death-row inmates
that includes concerned citizens and death-penalty opponents. “Lisa has
faith, hope and I think we need a whole lot more people like that.”
Brown has encouraged people to meet Thomas on Monday on the capital
steps as she embarks on the second leg of her journey.
“Lisa has a very large heart and she saw the need of the hungry,” said
Brown, a 71-year-old Lanett resident. “Before she got on the road we
visit ed three of her friends she feeds and dropped off some food to
keep them going while she was away.”
A former restaurant owner, Thomas delivers about 160 meals a week to
residents in Escambia County, gives out 50 food boxes a month and
stocks her van with groceries that she gives away to those who can’t
afford them.
She is relying on public and private donations to help fund her walk.
Carlisa Inc. is also asking 924 people to donate $25 each for the walk.
Thomas said all of the funds raised will be used to help senior
citizens and the working poor.
Friends will follow her in a van. She plans to sleep in the van, unless
someone donates money for a hotel room or offers her accommodations.
“Maybe some police chief will offer to let me stay in his jail
overnight,” said Thomas. “If I don’t make it I’m going to die trying.”
Donations can be made to Carlisa Inc., 1198 Old Castleberry Road,
Brewton, AL 36426.
Freedom of
Speech?
on
April 17th, 2005
A woman decides to speak out against hunger and the death penalty and
does so by walking from Brewton Al to Washington DC. A pretty amazing
undertaking, but do we as Americans think that she has a right to do
that? Apparently not on this Sunday morning in South Carolina. Lisa
just called, pretty upset after a serious incident, but determined to
carry on. I asked her to cover up the part about the death penalty on
her truck because of course that is what draws the heat, but she said,
“absolutely not! If they are for the death penalty, let them walk to
Washington!”
This was South Carolina but it could have been in Alabama, Georgia, any
of the Southern States that are so in love with killing and where
lynching happened only yesterday.
And if you notice that I am upset, believe me I am, upset and
concerned!
Last week we blogged about a new study that has
just been published in The Lancet, Great Britain's leading medical
journal. Studying the post-mortem toxicology reports of 49 executed
people in the states of Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina and South
Carolina, researchers were able to determine that the blood level
concentration of sodium thiopental -- the drug that is supposed to
render you unconscious while the other, poisonous drugs are
administered -- were too low.
In other words: There is the distinct possibility that in some cases,
people being executed may be awake and conscious while a paralyzing
agent is administered. This would leave them unable to cry out or react
in any way when the third drug is given -- a drug that would cause an
agonizing burning sensation.
Supporters of the death penalty might say, "So what? After what they
did, what's a little suffering?"
But in what amounts to a journalistic breakthrough, the Houston
Chronicle today explained the "so what" in an editorial. Here is an
excerpt:
Not surprisingly, death penalty supporters were unimpressed
with the findings. Andy Kahan, the crime victims advocate under Mayor
Bill White and the two previous Houston mayors, asserted that, "Lethal
injection represents the most humane possible means of punishing a
brutal, heinous murderer."
But, as the study's authors pointed out, there is too little data to
conclude that the procedure is painless. The Texas Department of
Criminal Justice told the researchers they don't have autopsy or
toxicology reports for executed inmates or information about how it
created the protocol it uses for injections. They said medical
technicians who administered the drugs in their sample population had
no training in anesthesia, and no post-execution reviews were conducted.
It's one thing to believe that lethal injection is painless, but it's
quite another to accept a degree of pain, a sentiment Kahan made clear
in his next breath: "Whether or not it is painful, one thing is for
sure, it is certainly less painful than the excruciating and horrific
death that the victim suffered at the hand of the defendant."
Kahan's defense of the state on grounds that it acts less viciously
than the murderer should not keep Texans from ensuring a humane
procedure. Texas executions are supposed to be about justice and
deterrence, not revenge. Also, in order to keep to the lawful side of
the U.S. Constitution, executions may not violate the Eighth
Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
Today, at this moment, a woman is walking. She is
walking against hunger. She is walking against the death penalty. She
started in Newton, Alabama. That was about 400 miles ago. A few days
ago, she was in Atlanta. By tomorrow evening, she should be in North
Carolina.
Walking. Walking against hunger. Walking against the death penalty.
Her name is Lisa Thomas. She is one brave woman.
Esther Brown of Project Hope to Abolish the Death Penalty out of
Alabama is following Lisa with her blog. Go here to check out this
remarkable journey. Also, be sure and click back to the March archives
of Esther's blog to see pictures of Lisa on her amazing adventure.
All out for the 12th Annual Fast and Vigil!
It's still approximately 72 days until Starvin'
for Justice 2005: The 12th Annual Fast and Vigil to Abolish the Death
Penalty.
But it's never too soon for people to think about whether they might
want to directly participate in this year's event or figure out a way
to otherwise support it.
The annual Fast and Vigil to Abolish the Death Penalty is held on the
sidewalk in front of the U.S. Supreme Court each year from midnight
June 29 to midnight June 2. June 29 is the anniversary of the seminal
1972 ruling Furman v. Georgia, which temporarily struck down death
penalty statutes in the United States. July 2 is the anniversary of the
sadder 1976 ruling Gregg v. Georgia, which allowed executions to resume.
I recently asked Abe Bonowitz, who helps organize the event, to share
with me his thoughts on why the fast and vigil is important. He ignited
my imagination by invoking the phrase "Abolition University" to
describe the educational value of the event. This year, there will be
additional teach-ins, more speaking opportunities, maybe some other
manifestations of our abolition work such as music, spoken word
performances, etc.
Abe wrote the following to me in an email:
The Fast & Vigil furthers the cause of abolition by
enhancing the skills and education of grassroots activists who are
doing the work every day in whatever way they can, wherever they happen
to be, and by educating the public via the mass media, and to a lesser
but equally important degree, those who encounter us in person.
Some of what the event provides:
1. Inspiration, training and education to activists working on the
issue.
2. Public education to those who encounter it directly and via the
media.
3. Symbolic presence at the heart of the issue, coupled with an
opportunity for personal sacrifice and re-dedication by individual
participants.
4. An annual opportunity for camaraderie among participants.
I personally see all four goals as important and useful, and I have
ranked them in order of their strategic value. This is why I have been
instituting the evening "teach-ins," which this year will be more
rounded to provide information, inspiration and training, over and
above that which one gets just by being a full-time participant. The
whole thing functions as a sort of "Abolition University." This year
the speakers will be recorded, audio, if not video, and the talks will
be made available on the web, for whatever that is worth, and also
deposited in the archives for future reference.
Last year, this blog had just launched when the 11th Annual Fast and
Vigil occurred. We "covered" the event live, to the degree that
resources would allow. Although our plans have not solidified yet and
much depends on resources (i.e., interns!), in some shape or form we
will be covering the event live again. In the meantime, the vigil has
its own website. Go here
for more information!
In memory: Marla Ruzicka
Courtesy of my friend Jason and his colleagues at
Democracy In Action, we
learned this morning of the passing of Marla Ruzicka.
Marla died over the weekend in Iraq. She was on her way to visit a
child who had been injured during the war when she became the victim of
a bombing.
There are a lot of really smart lawyers out there
doing anti-death penalty work. There are the big names, like Steven
Bright or Bryan Stevenson or the legendary Tony Amsterdam. There are
names that one day will be big, like Jim Marcus. There are names that
aren't big but they should be, like my friend and sometimes blog
advisor, Karl Keys.
But I have to say that my favorite lawyer out there has got to be David
Dow. Dow wears three hats. He represents a number of people on Texas
death row. He is a law professor at the University of Houston Law
Center. And he heads up the Texas Innocence Network.
Now Dow wears a fourth hat. He has published a brilliant and amazing
book, maybe the most important book published in recent years. It's
called Executed on a Technicality: Lethal Injustice on America's Death
Row.
Here's a brief description:
When David Dow took his first capital case, he supported
the death penalty. He changed his position as the men on death row
became real people to him, as he came to witness the profound
injustices they endured: from coerced confessions to disconcertingly
incompetent lawyers; from racist juries and backward judges to a highly
arbitrary death penalty system.
Dow’s eye-opening book is captivating because he allows the men, and
their cases, to speak for themselves. For instance, one inmate’s lawyer
literally slept through his trial; another inmate was executed because
the jury never heard from two eyewitnesses who swore he was no the
murderer; and yet another inmate was allowed to represent himself at
trial despite the fact that his mental imbalance, which included
attempts to issue a subpoena to Jesus Christ, was evident.
To read more about the book, to purchase it or even to read the entire
first chapter, go here. Folks, I
somehow lucked into an advance copy and I can tell you that this book
is simply amazing.
Thirty-six year old Richard Longworth died of a lethal injection
at 6:14 p.m. on Friday April 15. The State of South Carolina killed him
for his role in the shooting deaths of two men in 1991. Longworth
apologized to the victims' families and his own family for his role in
the shootings. Though he claimed that he did not pull the trigger (a
concept echoed by prosecutors), he noted his shame and stated that he
had tried to live the best life he could for the fourteen years he has
served on death row. Longworth was only 22 years old at the time of the
killings. He was the second man killed for these crimes. The first,
David Rocheville, was executed in 1999. The families of the victims
noted that, though the execution does not remove their pain, it helps
to know that the process is finally over.
A recent study about the effects of lethal injection on the
recipient showed that it is highly likely that individuals being
executed by lethal injection are aware and feel themselves dying,
despite the appearance of paralysis which prevents them from both
moving and speaking up. NCADP
issued a press release on this study, and David has blogged the press
release on the NCADP
blog. I will not duplicate the information therein. However,
suffice it to say that this is a big deal. If, in fact, individuals
feel themselves dying during the lethal injection process (which
essentially pumps them full of poison until their hearts stop and they
suffocate), lethal injection is officially as inhumane as hanging, the
gas chamber, firing squads and even electrocution. For all but one of
the 38 states which allow execution, lethal injection is the default
method of execution (in some states the condemned can choose
electrocution, hanging or a firing squad). Oh...and that's because,
other than electrocution, the remaining options are all considered
violative of the 8th Amendment provision against cruel and unusual
punishment.
Here's a choice quote from the article below:
"An examination of 49 autopsies found that in 43 cases, the
concentration of anesthetic in the bloodstream was less than what is
required to numb a surgical patient before making an incision. In 21
cases, the concentration wasn't sufficient to prevent a patient from
responding to a verbal command."
DISCLAIMER: Note that on a semi-regular basis cases in which I
have participated in one manner or another may be covered here. Note
that most opinions noted above are "slip opinions" that may be modified
or withdrawn by the issuing court without notice. This newsletter
is no substitute for legal research as it doesn't cover unpublished
cases, frequently misses cases and may overlook issues important to a
given case. Information herein is provided on a NO WARRANTY basis;
indeed, nothing posted is warranted as to accuracy (legal and
otherwise), correct interpretation of case precedent or for that much
of anything else. Subscribers and online readers
should not act upon this information without seeking professional
counsel. No person should act or fail to act on any legal matter based
on the contents of the introduction or summaries. Submissions related
to the weekly may
be reproduced without further notice. Please note all rights to
terminate
a subscription are retained by the editorial staff. Although I am
always
glad to help where I can , I am practicing attorney and receive
no financial
remuneration for the this weekly, the related web site or the
discussion
list, as such requests for assistance can not always timely
be answered as the bills still need to be paid.
ISSN: 1523-6684
* Execution date information per Rick Halperin and other sources.
