June 12 USA: Supreme Court Rules Death Row Inmates Can Challenge Lethal Injection The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that the nation's death row inmates can file last-minute challenges to lethal injection after they've exhausted their regular appeals. The court's ruling leaves unanswered, however, broader questions about the chemicals used in lethal injections around the country and whether they cause excruciating pain. The ruling sets the stage for a nationwide legal battle over that subject, with the country's 3,300 death row inmates armed with a new tool to contest how they are put to death. Justices have never ruled on the constitutionality of a specific type of execution. A constitutional showdown over lethal injection might be the next big death penalty case. The winner in Monday's decision was Florida death row inmate Clarence Hill, who was strapped to a gurney with lines running into his arms to deliver the drugs when the Supreme Court in January intervened and blocked the execution. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the court, said that while Hill and other inmates can file special appeals, they will not be always entitled to delays in their executions. "Both the state and the victims of crime have an important interest in the timely enforcement of a sentence," he wrote. Hill, convicted of killing a police officer, had run out of regular appeals so he went to court using a civil rights law claiming that his constitutional rights would be violated by Florida's lethal injection drug protocol. The court's decision renews his bid to have Florida change its chemical combination. The decision is setback for Florida and other states that will have to defend more last-minute filings from inmates. More than 2 dozen states had filed arguments at the court seeking the opposite outcome. They said dragged-out appeals jeopardize justice for victims' families. Lethal injection is the main method used by every state that has capital punishment except Nebraska. Nebraska still has the electric chair, although that, too, is being contested. Kennedy said that Hill is not claiming that he cannot be executed, only that he should not be forced into a painful execution. "Hill's challenge appears to leave the state free to use an alternative lethal injection procedure," Kennedy wrote. (source: Fox News) **************************** Justices Open Door to Lethal Shot Claims The Supreme Court opened the door Monday to constitutional challenges to lethal injection, the method used by most states and the federal government to execute death row inmates. In an unanimous decision, the court allowed those condemned to die to make last-minute claims that the chemicals used are too painful - and therefore amount to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Constitution's Eighth Amendment. The court's ruling leaves unanswered broader questions about the chemicals used in lethal injections around the country and whether they cause excruciating pain. In a 2nd death penalty case, the court ruled 5-3 that a Tennessee death-row inmate can use DNA evidence to attempt to show his innocence 20 years after he was convicted of murdering a neighbor. The lethal injection ruling sets the stage for a nationwide legal battle over that subject, with the country's 3,300 death row inmates armed with a new tool to contest how they are put to death. Justices have never ruled on the constitutionality of a specific type of execution. A constitutional showdown over lethal injection might be the next big death penalty case. The winner in Monday's decision was Florida death row inmate Clarence Hill, who was strapped to a gurney with lines running into his arms to deliver the drugs when the Supreme Court in January intervened and blocked the execution. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the court, said that while Hill and other inmates can file special appeals, they will not be always entitled to delays in their executions. "Both the state and the victims of crime have an important interest in the timely enforcement of a sentence," he wrote. Hill, convicted of killing a police officer, had run out of regular appeals so he went to court using a civil rights law claiming that his constitutional rights would be violated by Florida's lethal injection drug protocol. The court's decision renews his bid to have Florida change its chemical combination. The decision is setback for Florida and other states that will have to defend more last-minute filings from inmates. More than two dozen states had filed arguments at the court seeking the opposite outcome. They said dragged-out appeals jeopardize justice for victims' families. Lethal injection is the main method used by every state that has capital punishment except Nebraska. Nebraska still has the electric chair, although that, too, is being contested. Kennedy said that Hill is not claiming that he cannot be executed, only that he should not be forced into a painful execution. "Hill's challenge appears to leave the state free to use an alternative lethal injection procedure," Kennedy wrote. Justices seemed worried about the possibility of pain when they took up Hill's case in April. Justice John Paul Stevens told Florida's lawyer that their procedure would be banned for use to euthanize cats and dogs. Following the Supreme Court's intervention in the Hill case, executions were stopped in California, Maryland and Missouri. The case was one of several major death penalty appeals to come before a court that has 2 new members. Retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the court's 2004 ruling in its last lethal injection case. Justices said then that an Alabama death row inmate could pursue a last-ditch claim that his death by lethal injection would be unconstitutionally cruel because of his damaged veins. In Monday's ruling, Kennedy wrote that the court was only following precedent set in that case. The case is Hill v. McDonough, 05-8794. (source: Associated Press) TEXAS: Fight looms over meds for condemned man Steven Staley No one disputes that condemned killer Steven Staley is mentally ill. In 15 years on death row, he has suffered from delusions, lain in his own urine and bruised his own face. He is so sick that prosecutors, defense attorneys and a judge agree he is incompetent to be executed. For now. Tarrant County prosecutors are pushing to have the diagnosed schizophrenic forcibly medicated for his illness enabling him to be executed. And, so far, Texas courts are willing, setting up what could be a landmark legal showdown. Last week, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals without issuing an opinion upheld a district judge's order to forcibly medicate Mr. Staley. "It certainly could be a significant case," said Rob Owen, adjunct professor of law at the University of Texas. "The U.S. Supreme Court hasn't decided this question." The issue has bounced around various states' court systems for years, with some judges ruling that inmates cannot be forcibly medicated just so they can be executed, and others saying they can. But in Texas, the nation's No. 1 death penalty state, prosecutors haven't pushed the issue. Mentally ill inmates are periodically re-examined for improvement, but some prosecutors opt to let them serve a de facto life sentence. Tarrant County prosecutors Chuck Mallin and Jim Gibson decided on a different route for Mr. Staley. "We're going to go after anybody who's been sentenced to death," said Mr. Mallin, chief of the county's appellate division. "Our position right now is we're not going to warehouse them, we're going to seek to enforce the judgment of the court until the Court of Criminal Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court says we can't." Mr. Staley, 43, was sentenced to death for the 1989 murder of a restaurant manager. Psychiatrists have declared him to be suffering from schizophrenia and have prescribed an anti-psychotic drug. To the frustration of prosecutors, he doesn't always take the drug. "Mr. Staley was competent for many years," Mr. Mallin said. "And he was on medication, and one day he decided to stop taking his medication. When he ceased taking his medication, that rendered him incompetent, and we believe that was just wrong that he could decide his own fate." Others contend even death-row inmates have the right to refuse medication. "It's a basic human rights question," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. "Even those not involved in the death penalty might be concerned about it because it's symbolic: How much power do you give the state over the individual?" Jack Strickland, Mr. Staley's attorney, said he was concerned that the court ruled on the issue last week. "I'm a little bit distressed that they didn't entertain either a briefing of the issue or an opportunity for us to make argument to the court, given the significance of the issue," Mr. Strickland said. He intends to take the issue to higher courts. Prosecutors say they will press on with appeals if Mr. Strickland gets the order overturned. "We want an answer," Mr. Mallin said. "We want to know what to do." Litigation on the issue has been limited, partially because it doesn't come up often. But Mr. Owen, co-director of the capital punishment clinic at UT, said that could change as more death-row inmates suffer from mental illness. The death-row population "includes a much higher proportion of people who start out with serious mental disorders," he said. "When they spend long years in what is effectively solitary confinement ... you may see people break down more frequently over the long haul." In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled that executing inmates who do not understand that they are being put to death or why amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. Four years later, the court ruled that an inmate with a serious mental illness may be forcibly medicated if he is dangerous to himself or others and the treatment is in his medical interest. But in the case of a death-row inmate, improving his condition might make him eligible for execution, and it isn't clear whether or not that's in his "medical interest." So far, the Supreme Court has not accepted a case to decide the issue. "Clearly if you can make a person more comfortable and you can alleviate the symptoms of a mental illness, that's fine," said Mr. Strickland, the defense attorney. But, "it seems to me the balancing test would find in most cases lying in your own urine is preferable to being executed." Tarrant County prosecutors say they are concerned about Mr. Staley's health. "I don't think Mr. Staley should be in the penitentiary suffering from an extreme mental illness," Mr. Mallin said. But they also don't want Mr. Staley's illness to give him a "free pass" on the death penalty. "I don't think it's a free pass," Mr. Strickland said. "I don't think that anybody is suggesting that Mr. Staley be released from the penitentiary. ... The community is going to be well-protected from Mr. Staley for the rest of his life." He likened forcibly medicating Mr. Staley to make him competent for execution to "destroying the village in order to save it." Mr. Mallin conceded that restoring Mr. Staley to "normalcy" will cause "collateral damage to him" but insisted, "You have to be able to separate the treating of the mental illness." Mr. Dieter, of the Death Penalty Information Center, said it's impossible to separate treating the illness from execution. "If everyone was just interested in getting this person to a healthy state, there are ways to do that," he said. "You commute the sentence [and] get him some help." Mr. Dieter said the state of Maryland has a law requiring that death sentences be automatically reduced to life without parole once an inmate has been declared incompetent. The American Medical Association also takes that approach. Though death-row inmates may be treated, according to its policy, "physicians should not treat the prisoner for the purpose of restoring competence unless a commutation order is issued." A spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice said their written policy on forced medication addresses only the issue of dangerousness and does not address the issue of competence for execution. Prison officials declined to comment on the Staley case until they receive the order. But prosecutors say they aren't concerned about finding someone to treat Mr. Staley if the order to forcibly medicate him stands up. "In Texas, we will find a doctor," Mr. Mallin said. "We don't worry about that." (source: Dallas Morning News) TENNESSEE: High Court Allows Tenn. Death Row Inmate to Use DNA Evidence in Appeal A Tennessee death-row inmate can use DNA evidence to attempt to show his innocence 20 years after he was convicted of murdering a neighbor, the Supreme Court ruled Monday. The high court's decision is significant because numerous exonerations in recent years of death-row and other criminal defendants through DNA testing have raised concerns among civil libertarians, prosecutors and Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens that an innocent person may be executed, or already has been. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the court, said the evidence in the case was a "close" call for a jury. But he said that inmate Paul Gregory House could proceed with a lawsuit in federal court claiming innocence for the murder of Carolyn Muncey, a young mother of two, in Union County, Tenn., in July 1985. 20 years after his conviction, DNA testing revealed that semen found on the murder victim's nightgown and underwear belonged to her husband, not House. "This is not a case of conclusive exoneration," Kennedy wrote on behalf of himself and four other justices. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented. Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the case because it was argued before he joined the high court. Kennedy said jurors could find reasonable doubt because DNA evidence points to Muncey's husband as a suspect and because small blood stains found on House's jeans may have spilled on the pants from vials of blood taken from Muncey during an autopsy. House, who was on parole for a sex offense in Utah, was convicted of luring Muncey from her home by telling her that her husband, Hubert, had been hurt in a car accident. Her body was found the next afternoon in an area where witnesses had seen House. His original lawyer failed to locate several witnesses who said years later that Hubert Muncey had abused his wife, had fought with her the night of her murder and had confessed later to killing her. (source: Fox News) ********************** First Death Penalty Case 21 year old Rejon Taylor is expected to appear in court today as prosecutors prepare to seek the death penalty for him. Taylor was 1 of 3 men the government says kidnapped an Atlanta restaurant owner and shot him near Collegedale 3 years ago. The victim, Guy Luck, died of his wounds at the scene. The other two men, 21 year old Sir Jack Matthews and 20 year old Joey Marshall will face trial at a later date. This will be the 1st death penalty sought by federal authorities in the Eastern District of Tennessee. (source: WDEF News)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news------USA, TEXAS, TENN.
Rick Halperin Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:05:42 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
