>> WELL, WOULD YOU -- I
THINK SHE HAS ADDRESSED THE
ISSUE OF THE RECORDS AND WE
ARE SEEING THIS ON A
REPETITIVE BASIS WITH REGARD
TO SOME CHANGES THAT, THAT
ARE ALLEGEDLY OCCURRING WITH
RECALL TO PROTOCOLS AND
THOSE KIND OF THINGS AND
THERE SEEMS TO BE A RUNNING
DISCUSSION GOING ON SO COULD
YOU ADDRESS THAT AS WELL?
>> WELL, MY OPPONENT IN HER
BRIEF TALKS ABOUT HOW THESE
RECORDS PREVENTED HER FROM
CENTRING THE EXPERT DOING
THE ANALYSIS THE STATE'S
POSITION IS MOTION SHOULD BE
-- YOU CAN FILE AN I REQUEST
AT ANY TIME ALL YOU HAVE TO
DO IS SHOW THAET IT'S
CALCULATED TO LEAD TO THE
DISCOVERY OF A CLAIM.
THEREFORE, THE CLAIM, THE
MOTION, THE REQUEST SHOULD
HAVE BEEN MADE BEFORE YOU
SHOW UP AT THE HUFF HEARING
ON YOUR MOTION.
SECONDLY, MY OPPONENT AT THE
NOVEMBER 17th HEARING
ADMITTED THAT SHE HAS THE
AUTOPSY REPORTS FROM 2000 TO
2005.
SHE COULD'VE PRESENTED THOSE
TO HER EXPERT AND HAD HIM
EVILY!!IUATE THOSE.
SHE'S TALKING ABOUT ONLY THE
THREE MOST RECENT AUTOPSY
REQUESTS BUT BY THE WAY SHE
THEN TURNED AROUND AND ASKED
DOC AND THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE FOR THE
AUTOPSY REQUESTS.
THESE REQUESTS WENT ON FOR
PAGES.
THEY WERE VASTLY OVERBROAD.
THEY WERE UNTIMELY.
AND THE STATE'S POSITION IS
THE TRIAL COURT DIDN'T ABUSE
ITS DISCRETION PARTICULARLY
CONSIDERING THAT THIS COURT
HAS REJECTED THESE PUBLIC
RECORD CLAIMS IN ROTHERFORD,
HILL, AND RAULEN.
>> I THINK WHAT THE QUESTION
I HAVE ABOUT THE PROTOCOL IS
AT THE END OF RUTHERFORD OR
HALL IS THAT THERE HAS BEEN
WHAT APPEARED TO BE AN
INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF
ONE OF THE DRUGS.
WHAT IS THE STATE OF THE
RECORD ON THAT?
>> WELL THE STATE OF THE
RECORD ON THAT IS IN YOUR
SIMS OPINION WHAT YOU SAID
THE TESTIMONY WAS.
AND WHAT THE TESTIMONY WAS
THAT THE SODIUM PENTHOL
WOULD BE IN SYRINGES.
THE NEW PROTOCOL OR
ALLEGEDLY NEW PROTOCOL
DIRECTLY SAYS IT'S TWO
SYRINGES.
THERE'S NO CHANGE JUST
CLARIFICATION OF THE
LANGUAGE.
>> MORE SPECIFIC AS TO --
>> WE NEVER SAID THERE WERE
TWO.
WE SAID TWO SYRINGES
CONTAINING NO LESS THAN TWO.
THEY INTERPRETED THAT AS
TWO.
TWO SYRINGES CONTAINING 2.5
ARE NOT TWO SYRINGEDS
CONTAINING LESS THAN TWO.
>> IF IN FACT IT'S A LITTLE
BIT MORE.
>> WELL, THEY'RE THE SAME
STATEMENT.
ONE IS CLEARER THAN THE
OTHER BUT THEY'RE BOTH THE
SAME STATEMENT.
TWO SYRINGES NO LESS THAN
TWO, THEY INTERPRET THAT AS
TWO.
NO LESS THAN TWO IS WHAT WE
SAID.
FIVE ISN'T LESS THAN FIVE.
>> HOW DOES IF AT SOME POINT
WLL WE'RE AT THE CONTROVERSY
CONTINUES THAT THERE COULD
BOW A RISK OF CONSTANT PAIN,
WHAT MECHANISM DOES THE
COURT HAVE TO MONITOR THAT?
I MEAN WE DON'T WANT TO BE INTERFERING WITH EACH AND EVERY EXECUTION.
I RECALL AT THE END OF THE,
WHEN THE ELECTRIC CHAIR WE
WERE HAVE THE STATE FILE
UPDATES ON HOW, YOU KNOW,
WHAT WAS BEING DONE TO
REVIEW IT.
CAN YOU UAS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT TELL US IF YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION AS TO WHETHER THIS IS AN ONGOING CONCERN OF THE DOC AND THE STATE OR IF YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE ABOUT THAT AT ALL?
>> THE STATE'S POSITION IS,
THE STATE OF THINGS HASN'T
CHANGED SINCE SIMS.
IF THEY COME UP WITH SOME ACTUALLY NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM PERHAPS IT WOULD BE TIME TO LOOK AT IT AGAIN. THEY HAVE NOT DONE THAT. ALL THEY HAVE COME OUT WITH SPECULATION OUT AFFA LANSET ARTICLE PUBLISHED MORE THAN A YEAR BEFORE THEY FILED THEIR ARTICLE. SPECULATION FROM WHY THE SPECULATION MIGHT BE TRUE FROM A LETTER THAT WAS PRESENTED A LETTER TO THE EDITOR AFTER THE LANSET ARTICLE.
THEY ADMIT THEY HAVE THE
AUTOPSY REPORTS FROM 2000 TO
2005.
THEY COULD GIVE THEM TO AN
EXPERT AND HAVE THE EXPERT
TELL THEM WHETHER OR NOT
THERE'S A PROBLEM AND THEN
TIMELY PRESENT THAT CLAIM.
IF THEY HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF
A PROBLEM.
AND THE STATE'S POSITION IS
THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, THE
REASON YOU HAD THE, THE
HEARINGS ON THE ELECTRIC
CHAIR IS THERE WAS EVIDENCE
THERE WAS A PROBLEM.
THERE HAD BEEN FLAMES THEN
YOU HAD CHART READINGS AND
THE CHART MEETINGS DIDN'T
MATCH WHAT THEY WERE GOING
TO MATCH.
THERE'S NOTHING HERE BUT SPECULATION ABOUT WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN SO UNTIL AND UNLESS THEY COME UP WITH SOME ACTUALLY NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE THAT THEY PRESENT DILIGENTLY FROM WITHIN A YEAR OF WHEN THEY COULD'VE DISCOVERED IT, THERE'S NOTHING TO CONSIDER.
92 THE -- APPEERS THAT THE
ARGUMENT, AND IT IS BECOMING
REPETITIVE IN MULTIUAL CASES
IS THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE
INFORMATION AND YOU'RE TODAY
SAYING THIS RECORD
DEMONSTRATES THAT THAT
INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE.
IT'S THERE.
AND THAT'S NOT A MERITORIOUS
ARGUMENT.
CERTAINLY WE WOULD KNOW IT
WOULD HAVE TO HAVE
DOCUMENTATION BEFORE YOU CAN
WHETHER WHAT'S HAPPENING IS
THE SAME OR NOT.
SO THE RECORD HERE DOES DEMONSTRATE THAT ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS NECESSARY HAVE, HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE IN.
>> CERTAINLY NOT ALL OF THE
DOCUMENTS THEY WANT.
>> WELL, SUFFICIENT
DOCUMENTATION IS AVAILABLE?
>> BUT,
[INAUDIBLE]
PAGE 23 OF THE NOVEMBER 17th
WHEN THEY'RE COMPLAINING
ABOUT ME REPRESENTING THE
AGENCIES THEY SAY THE
MEDICAL EXAMINER OF THE
EIGHTH DISTRICT SENT THUS
AUTOPSY REPORTS BEFORE THE
LAST THREE.
SO THEY HAVE THOSE AUTOPSY
REPORTS.
UNLESS THE KOURLT HAS ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS THE STATE
RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS YOU
DENY ALL OF THESE.
>> THANK YOU.
THINK SHE HAS ADDRESSED THE
ISSUE OF THE RECORDS AND WE
ARE SEEING THIS ON A
REPETITIVE BASIS WITH REGARD
TO SOME CHANGES THAT, THAT
ARE ALLEGEDLY OCCURRING WITH
RECALL TO PROTOCOLS AND
THOSE KIND OF THINGS AND
THERE SEEMS TO BE A RUNNING
DISCUSSION GOING ON SO COULD
YOU ADDRESS THAT AS WELL?
>> WELL, MY OPPONENT IN HER
BRIEF TALKS ABOUT HOW THESE
RECORDS PREVENTED HER FROM
CENTRING THE EXPERT DOING
THE ANALYSIS THE STATE'S
POSITION IS MOTION SHOULD BE
-- YOU CAN FILE AN I REQUEST
AT ANY TIME ALL YOU HAVE TO
DO IS SHOW THAET IT'S
CALCULATED TO LEAD TO THE
DISCOVERY OF A CLAIM.
THEREFORE, THE CLAIM, THE
MOTION, THE REQUEST SHOULD
HAVE BEEN MADE BEFORE YOU
SHOW UP AT THE HUFF HEARING
ON YOUR MOTION.
SECONDLY, MY OPPONENT AT THE
NOVEMBER 17th HEARING
ADMITTED THAT SHE HAS THE
AUTOPSY REPORTS FROM 2000 TO
2005.
SHE COULD'VE PRESENTED THOSE
TO HER EXPERT AND HAD HIM
EVILY!!IUATE THOSE.
SHE'S TALKING ABOUT ONLY THE
THREE MOST RECENT AUTOPSY
REQUESTS BUT BY THE WAY SHE
THEN TURNED AROUND AND ASKED
DOC AND THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE FOR THE
AUTOPSY REQUESTS.
THESE REQUESTS WENT ON FOR
PAGES.
THEY WERE VASTLY OVERBROAD.
THEY WERE UNTIMELY.
AND THE STATE'S POSITION IS
THE TRIAL COURT DIDN'T ABUSE
ITS DISCRETION PARTICULARLY
CONSIDERING THAT THIS COURT
HAS REJECTED THESE PUBLIC
RECORD CLAIMS IN ROTHERFORD,
HILL, AND RAULEN.
>> I THINK WHAT THE QUESTION
I HAVE ABOUT THE PROTOCOL IS
AT THE END OF RUTHERFORD OR
HALL IS THAT THERE HAS BEEN
WHAT APPEARED TO BE AN
INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF
ONE OF THE DRUGS.
WHAT IS THE STATE OF THE
RECORD ON THAT?
>> WELL THE STATE OF THE
RECORD ON THAT IS IN YOUR
SIMS OPINION WHAT YOU SAID
THE TESTIMONY WAS.
AND WHAT THE TESTIMONY WAS
THAT THE SODIUM PENTHOL
WOULD BE IN SYRINGES.
THE NEW PROTOCOL OR
ALLEGEDLY NEW PROTOCOL
DIRECTLY SAYS IT'S TWO
SYRINGES.
THERE'S NO CHANGE JUST
CLARIFICATION OF THE
LANGUAGE.
>> MORE SPECIFIC AS TO --
>> WE NEVER SAID THERE WERE
TWO.
WE SAID TWO SYRINGES
CONTAINING NO LESS THAN TWO.
THEY INTERPRETED THAT AS
TWO.
TWO SYRINGES CONTAINING 2.5
ARE NOT TWO SYRINGEDS
CONTAINING LESS THAN TWO.
>> IF IN FACT IT'S A LITTLE
BIT MORE.
>> WELL, THEY'RE THE SAME
STATEMENT.
ONE IS CLEARER THAN THE
OTHER BUT THEY'RE BOTH THE
SAME STATEMENT.
TWO SYRINGES NO LESS THAN
TWO, THEY INTERPRET THAT AS
TWO.
NO LESS THAN TWO IS WHAT WE
SAID.
FIVE ISN'T LESS THAN FIVE.
>> HOW DOES IF AT SOME POINT
WLL WE'RE AT THE CONTROVERSY
CONTINUES THAT THERE COULD
BOW A RISK OF CONSTANT PAIN,
WHAT MECHANISM DOES THE
COURT HAVE TO MONITOR THAT?
I MEAN WE DON'T WANT TO BE INTERFERING WITH EACH AND EVERY EXECUTION.
I RECALL AT THE END OF THE,
WHEN THE ELECTRIC CHAIR WE
WERE HAVE THE STATE FILE
UPDATES ON HOW, YOU KNOW,
WHAT WAS BEING DONE TO
REVIEW IT.
CAN YOU UAS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT TELL US IF YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION AS TO WHETHER THIS IS AN ONGOING CONCERN OF THE DOC AND THE STATE OR IF YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE ABOUT THAT AT ALL?
>> THE STATE'S POSITION IS,
THE STATE OF THINGS HASN'T
CHANGED SINCE SIMS.
IF THEY COME UP WITH SOME ACTUALLY NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM PERHAPS IT WOULD BE TIME TO LOOK AT IT AGAIN. THEY HAVE NOT DONE THAT. ALL THEY HAVE COME OUT WITH SPECULATION OUT AFFA LANSET ARTICLE PUBLISHED MORE THAN A YEAR BEFORE THEY FILED THEIR ARTICLE. SPECULATION FROM WHY THE SPECULATION MIGHT BE TRUE FROM A LETTER THAT WAS PRESENTED A LETTER TO THE EDITOR AFTER THE LANSET ARTICLE.
THEY ADMIT THEY HAVE THE
AUTOPSY REPORTS FROM 2000 TO
2005.
THEY COULD GIVE THEM TO AN
EXPERT AND HAVE THE EXPERT
TELL THEM WHETHER OR NOT
THERE'S A PROBLEM AND THEN
TIMELY PRESENT THAT CLAIM.
IF THEY HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF
A PROBLEM.
AND THE STATE'S POSITION IS
THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, THE
REASON YOU HAD THE, THE
HEARINGS ON THE ELECTRIC
CHAIR IS THERE WAS EVIDENCE
THERE WAS A PROBLEM.
THERE HAD BEEN FLAMES THEN
YOU HAD CHART READINGS AND
THE CHART MEETINGS DIDN'T
MATCH WHAT THEY WERE GOING
TO MATCH.
THERE'S NOTHING HERE BUT SPECULATION ABOUT WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN SO UNTIL AND UNLESS THEY COME UP WITH SOME ACTUALLY NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE THAT THEY PRESENT DILIGENTLY FROM WITHIN A YEAR OF WHEN THEY COULD'VE DISCOVERED IT, THERE'S NOTHING TO CONSIDER.
92 THE -- APPEERS THAT THE
ARGUMENT, AND IT IS BECOMING
REPETITIVE IN MULTIUAL CASES
IS THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE
INFORMATION AND YOU'RE TODAY
SAYING THIS RECORD
DEMONSTRATES THAT THAT
INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE.
IT'S THERE.
AND THAT'S NOT A MERITORIOUS
ARGUMENT.
CERTAINLY WE WOULD KNOW IT
WOULD HAVE TO HAVE
DOCUMENTATION BEFORE YOU CAN
WHETHER WHAT'S HAPPENING IS
THE SAME OR NOT.
SO THE RECORD HERE DOES DEMONSTRATE THAT ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS NECESSARY HAVE, HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE IN.
>> CERTAINLY NOT ALL OF THE
DOCUMENTS THEY WANT.
>> WELL, SUFFICIENT
DOCUMENTATION IS AVAILABLE?
>> BUT,
[INAUDIBLE]
PAGE 23 OF THE NOVEMBER 17th
WHEN THEY'RE COMPLAINING
ABOUT ME REPRESENTING THE
AGENCIES THEY SAY THE
MEDICAL EXAMINER OF THE
EIGHTH DISTRICT SENT THUS
AUTOPSY REPORTS BEFORE THE
LAST THREE.
SO THEY HAVE THOSE AUTOPSY
REPORTS.
UNLESS THE KOURLT HAS ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS THE STATE
RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS YOU
DENY ALL OF THESE.
>> THANK YOU.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment