Tuesday, 8 April 2008

Doctor says prisoners die worse than dogs


AP via Google News
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Lorain Chronicle-Telegram
- - - - -
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jUdzDJsVKYD8hDRPuIJ48w4d2qEQD8VTKRB02
Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Hearing Continues Over Lethal Injection
By JOE MILICIA - 4 hours ago

ELYRIA, Ohio (AP) -- Ohio's lethal injection method was assailed as
unfit for
even household pets by
an anesthesiologist testifying in a case challenging the
constitutionality of
the procedure.

The three-drug cocktail would cause agonizing pain if the anesthetic
isn't
properly administered,
and the state's procedure for executions doesn't protect against that
happening,
according to an
expert witness hired by the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio.

"The way lethal injection is being done in Ohio does not comport with
what is
being done for
euthanizing of animals," Dr. Mark Heath said Monday. "It falls way
below that
standard."

The state will get its turn to present an expert on Tuesday, when Dr.
Mark
Dershwitz, an
anesthesiologist from Massachusetts, was expected to testify via video
conference that he believes
the process is humane.

Heath, an assistant professor of anesthesiology at Columbia University,
said
it's possible to perform
lethal injection on prisoners in a humane manner, but that Ohio's
method falls
below the standard
for euthanizing household pets.

Heath testified on behalf of Ronald McCloud and Ruben Rivera, who are
accused of
separate murders
and could receive death sentences if convicted. The two men say the
state's
lethal injection
procedure doesn't give the quick and painless deaths required by state
law.

In Ohio, difficulties in recent years with two executions, in which the
execution team struggled to
find suitable veins in inmates' arms, brought complaints that the
method is
unconstitutionally cruel
and unusual. Ohio officials stand by the procedure.

Lethal injections are on hold nationally while the U.S. Supreme Court
considers
a challenge in a case
from Kentucky, which is among the roughly three dozen states, like
Ohio, that
administer three drugs
in succession to sedate, paralyze and kill prisoners.

The major criticism of the three-drug execution procedure is that the
inmate
could suffer
excruciating pain from the final two drugs if the executioner
administers too
little anesthetic or
makes mistakes injecting it.

Heath testified that the design of Ohio's death house, where executions
take
place, is problematic
because the inmate and the person administering the drugs are in
different rooms
separated by a
one-way mirror.

Anesthesiologists always administer drugs while standing next to the
patient so
they can detect if
problems occur, such as a leak or a ruptured vein, Heath said. He also
warned
drugs could go into
tissue instead of a vein.

Other problems that could occur include catheters coming out of veins,
kinks in
the IV tubing and
errors in the mixing of the anesthetic -- sodium thiopental -- which is
sold in
powder form.

During a contentious cross examination from Assistant Prosecutor Tony
Cillo,
Heath testified that he
is personally opposed to the death penalty in whatever form it's
carried out.
Heath, who has testified
about lethal injection in 11 states, also said he has not found an
acceptable
method for lethal
injection in any state.
- - - - -
Hosted by
Copyright (c) 2008 The Associated Press.

/ / / / /

Tuesday, April 08, 2008


http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1207643609160090.xml&coll=2


Doctor says prisoners die worse than dogs

Karen Farkas
Plain Dealer Reporter

Elyria - An animal in Ohio is put to death more humanely than a person
on death
row, says an
anesthesiologist who asserts that the state's lethal injection process
can
result in an excruciating
death.

"It's complicated, and things can and do go wrong," said Dr. Mark
Heath, who
testified Monday on
behalf of two men charged with aggravated murder. The men want Lorain
County
Common Pleas
Judge James Burge to declare the death penalty unconstitutional,
arguing that
lethal injection
constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

It is the first time in the United States that the issue has been
reviewed
before the start of a capital-
murder trial, said Jeffrey Gamso, legal director of the American Civil
Liberties
Union of Ohio. Gamso
is representing Ruben Rivera and Ronald McCloud in the hearing, which
is to
conclude today.

Challenges to lethal injection have been filed in federal courts in
many states,
including Ohio. Heath,
of Columbia University Medical Center, and Dr. Mark Dershwitz, an
anesthesiologist at the University
of Massachusetts Medical School who will testify for prosecutors today,
testified in a similar case in
Kentucky filed by two death row inmates. That case was heard in January
by the
U.S. Supreme Court,
which is to rule by this summer.

The decision is likely to have no effect in Lorain County, where Burge
is taking
the unusual step of
ruling on a constitutional issue.

The judge was an active participant in Monday's hearing, questioning
Heath from
the bench. Burge
said he was interested in getting a medical view on whether patients
suffer a
painless death, which is
guaranteed by law.

Heath, who has reviewed Ohio's lethal-injection protocol, said that if
an animal
is euthanized, the
veterinarian simply administers a fatal dose of a sleep-inducing
barbiturate.

If an inmate is put to death, prison staffers in an adjacent room
administer
three drugs through long
tubes connected to his strapped-down arms. If the drugs are mixed and
administered correctly, the
inmate will first go to sleep from anesthesia, his muscles will be
paralyzed
from the second drug and
the final drug will stop the heart.

If not enough anesthesia is administered, Heath said, the inmate would
feel
immense pain from the
heart-stopping potassium chloride but would be unable to express it
because of
the paralyzing
drug.

Errors can occur in the mixing of the drugs, the handling of the
syringes, leaks
in tubes or catheters
or problems locating veins, Heath said.

He said a fatal dose of thiopental, the anesthesia, could be
administered alone,
but it would take
longer for death to occur.

Rivera, 37, of Cleveland, who filed the motion, was indicted in August
2004 in
the shooting death of
Manuel Garcia. McCloud, whose death penalty case for the June 2005
death of
Janet Barnard was also
assigned to Burge, asked the judge in 2007 to join Rivera's motion.

Burge will review the testimony and briefs that will be filed before
ruling.
It's unclear when he will
rule. Both sides have said they are likely to appeal.
- - - - -
To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:
kfarkas@plaind.com, 216-999-5079

/ / / / /

http://www.chroniclet.com/2008/04/08/state-kills-cruelly-expert-testifies/

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Ohio's lethal injection method too cruel for a dog, expert testifies
Brad Dicken | The Chronicle-Telegram

ELYRIA -- There's a humane way to execute criminals, but the state of
Ohio
hasn't found it yet, an
anesthesiologist testified Monday in the first day of a hearing on the
constitutionality of the state's
lethal injection process.

"I don't think any animal, be it a human being, a dog or a cat, should
be
subjected to this protocol,"
said Mark Heath, an anesthesiologist at Columbia University Medical
Center in
New York City and a
nationally recognized expert on lethal injection.

Veterinarians won't use the lethal injection method used in Ohio when
euthanizing animals, a
warning sign that there are problems with the process, according to
Heath, who
is a death penalty
opponent.

County Common Pleas Judge James Burge is holding the unprecedented
hearing and
will decide
whether the state's execution method is quick and painless as required
by Ohio
law and if it can
withstand the constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Heath said the state's lethal injection process would be humane if it
were
administered correctly, but
there aren't any assurances that something won't go wrong.

The state's execution team has two trained emergency medical
technicians and a
third member that
the state has refused to disclose the full medical training of --
although it
isn't a doctor, according
to state officials.

Those three place the shunts in a condemned inmate's arms and then send
a
three-drug cocktail
into the prisoner's veins.

Regardless of the training the three receive, it is not a guarantee
that the
inmate won't suffer, Heath
said. Training, he said, doesn't always equate to skill or experience,
especially when the drugs are
being administered from another dimly lit room and pumped into the
death chamber
where the
condemned prisoner is strapped to a table.

"Doing it that way substantially increases the risk of a major problem
occurring," Heath said.

Heath said he wouldn't attempt to put a patient under anesthesia unless
he was
next to the patient.
Veterinarians likewise wouldn't euthanize an animal unless they were
"at the
bedside," he said.

Even trained anesthesiologists who regularly put people under can make
mistakes
despite their
extensive knowledge and state-of-the art technology, Heath said.

Patients sometimes awake during a surgery, for instance, but cannot
move, he
said.

"Patients say, 'I felt every cut,' " he said. "They're locked in. They
have no
way of communicating that
they're awake."

The same thing could happen in a botched execution, Heath said.

Assistant County Prosecutor Tony Cillo said that while Heath may
believe an
anesthesiologist is the
only one qualified to administer the lethal drugs correctly, most
doctors refuse
to participate in
executions.

"It's a catch-22," Cillo said. "The state needs an anesthesiologist,
but no
anesthesiologist will
participate."

But Heath said a survey showed that about 20 percent of doctors
nationwide would
be willing to do
so.

Critics of lethal injection contend that if the first drug in the
process, a
sedative, isn't administered
correctly, condemned prisoners would slowly be suffocated as the
second drug
paralyzed them.

The third drug, which stops the heart, is "notoriously painful," Heath
said, and
would be felt by an
inmate if the sedative didn't work properly.

Although the three drugs together could be painful if used improperly,
Heath
said the sedative alone
would be enough to kill a human by eventually causing the person
injected with
it to stop breathing.

Cillo said it would take longer if the state relied solely on the
sedative; the
other two drugs speed up
death in a condemned prisoner.

During Cillo's sometimes-heated cross-examination, Heath refused to
name other
drugs that would
cause a person's heart to stop in a less painful manner than the one
currently
used in lethal
injection.

Even after Cillo and Burge rephrased the question and asked him what
drugs he
would be especially
careful administering to his patients, Heath refused to answer --
saying it
would violate medical
ethics and could be construed as offering advice on how to execute
someone.

The hearing before Burge came about from challenges of the lethal
injection
process filed by Ruben
Rivera and Ronald McCloud -- two murder suspects who could face
execution if
convicted in two
separate murders.

The hearing resumes today, when an expert for the state is expected to
testify
via a video conference
call.
- - - - -
Contact Brad Dicken at 329-7147 or
bdicken@chroniclet.com.

Rev. Mr. George W. Broos J.D.
Flossmoor, IL. 60422
708--799-1389

Ohio’s Use of Lethal Injection is Unconstitutional, Says ACLU


04.03.08

Ohio’s Use of Lethal Injection is Unconstitutional, Says ACLU

Media Advisory
For immediate release

CLEVELAND- The ACLU of Ohio is challenging Ohio’s administration of lethal injection as illegal and unconstitutional in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. An evidentiary hearing in the cases is scheduled for Monday, April 7, 2008 and Tuesday, April 8, 2008.

The cases are State v. Rivera and State v. McCloud. The ACLU of Ohio represents the defendants in their argument that Ohio's method of carrying out lethal injections is both illegal and unconstitutional because it is likely to result in inmates being, in effect, tortured to death.

Lethal injection procedures do not always run smoothly. Ohio has a demonstrated record of incompetence in the administration of lethal injection. It is likely that many Ohio death row inmates suffer excruciating, torturous pain during executions. That likely pain violates the federal and state constitutions, which forbid cruel and unusual punishment and violate Ohio’s statutory requirement that death be administered “quickly and painlessly.”

Lethal injection is Ohio’s only method of execution, and if it cannot be performed lawfully, then the judge cannot impose the death penalty. These are the first cases in the nation to address these questions before trial and to have the possibility of precluding the death penalty completely.

This is also the first time an Ohio court will consider expert testimony on how executions are performed in Ohio.

What: Hearing in Lorain County Court of Common Pleas regarding
Ohio’s controversial use of lethal injection in executions.

Who: Jeffrey M. Gamso, Legal Director of the ACLU of Ohio, will present
testimony before Judge James Burge.

When: Monday, April 7, 2008, 9:00 AM EST and continuing Tuesday,
April 8, 2008

Where: Lorain County Justice Center
225 Court Street, 7th Floor
Elyria, OH 44036-0749

-30-

Get more information on our Death Penalty page

Read Execution Protocols and Procedures for selecting members of the execution team and carrying out executions in Ohio.

Serial killer sues state on execution method


Serial killer sues state on execution method

Tuesday, April 08, 2008
STAN DIEL
News staff writer

Alabama's new execution procedure, which critics have blasted as a thinly veiled attempt to get around a federal moratorium on the death penalty, still amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, a Death Row inmate argues in a lawsuit against the state.

Daniel Lee Siebert, a convicted serial killer who is dying of pancreatic cancer while he awaits execution, amended a suit filed earlier to claim that Alabama's new procedure for executing the condemned violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

"The revision to the protocol is substantial, though inadequate to meet constitutional standards," the suit says.

In October, the Department of Corrections adopted changes to its execution protocol to require a corrections officer to assess the consciousness of the condemned before the administration of chemicals intended to cause paralysis and cardiac arrest.

The guard is to speak the inmate's name, pinch his arm and brush his eyelashes to determine whether a drug meant to cause unconsciousness was effective. If the inmate is judged unconscious, the execution is to continue, DOC officials have said.

In the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Siebert argues that the guard tasked with assessing consciousness has "no medical background," making the change insufficient to assure the condemned doesn't unduly suffer.

In motions filed Monday afternoon by the state, Alabama Attorney General Troy King asked the court to dismiss the suit, saying a statute of limitations giving Siebert two years to file the action had expired. King also argued in the filing that Siebert - given separate death sentences for two murders - should not be allowed to challenge the constitutionality of the sentences separately.

"Even though Siebert was sentenced to death two times, Alabama has only one procedure by which he will be executed," King wrote in the filing.

Brian Corbett, a spokesman for the Department of Corrections, said Siebert's argument that the state's execution procedure amounts to cruel and unusual punishment is not new. It's the same fight being waged before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Kentucky case of Baze vs. Rees, he said.

Most states have voluntarily halted executions pending the outcome of the Kentucky case, which challenges lethal injection on the grounds that it amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. Federal courts have ordered stays in states that have tried to carry out executions, including Alabama. A decision is expected this summer.

Siebert also argues that complications related to his cancer would make executing him cruel and unusual punishment. It may be hard to find veins to administer the drugs, and one of the drugs believed used by the state for executions could react with his cancer drugs, causing severe pain that would be only visibly masked by an execution drug causing paralysis, he said.

Efforts to reach an attorney representing Siebert were unsuccessful Monday.

Alabama does not disclose the details of its execution procedure. But Siebert's suit, and suits brought by other Death Row inmates, indicate the state uses three drugs: Thiopental, Pavulon and potassium chloride.

Thiopental is a barbiturate believed to be administered first as an anesthetic. Pavulon, a trade name for pancuronium bromide, is believed to be administered second, to paralyze the condemned. Potassium chloride is believed used last, to cause cardiac arrest.

According to lawsuits filed by inmates, Alabama's execution procedure before the October changes was identical to the procedure used in Kentucky. Alabama changed its procedure shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would consider the Kentucky case. Anti-death-penalty activists argued that the Alabama development was an attempt to skirt the moratorium.

Siebert was convicted of five Alabama murders and has confessed to as many as 13 killings nationwide. Now 53, he was sentenced to death for the Feb. 19, 1986, strangulation killing of his girlfriend, Sherri Weathers, 24, and her two sons, 5-year-old Chad and 4-year-old Joey. Weathers was a student at the Alabama Institute for Deaf and Blind in Talladega.

Siebert also was sentenced to death for the murder of Linda Jarman, a resident of Weathers' apartment complex. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced separately, to life in prison, for killing Linda Faye Odum, 32, also of Talladega. Police said he strangled all five of his Alabama victims to death over a period of a few hours.

Siebert also pleaded guilty in Nevada to manslaughter, and was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Authorities have said he confessed to a number of other killings - the exact number is unclear - from California to New Jersey.

E-mail: sdiel@bhamnews.com

© 2008 The Birmingham News
© 2008 al.com All Rights Reserved.

Doctor: Ohio's Lethal Injection Inhumane


Doctor: Ohio's Lethal Injection Inhumane

Apr 7, 6:50 PM (ET)

By JOE MILICIA

ELYRIA, Ohio (AP) - An anesthesiologist testified Monday that Ohio's lethal injection procedure isn't appropriate for dogs or cats, let alone humans.

Dr. Mark Heath's testimony on behalf of two murder defendants came in a Lorain County hearing on the constitutionality of state's method for putting prisoners to death.

Heath, an assistant professor of anesthesiology at Columbia University, says it's possible to perform lethal injection of prisoners in a humane manner, but that Ohio's method falls below the standard for euthanizing household pets.

Under cross-examination, Heath testified that he is personally opposed to the death penalty in whatever form it's carried out. Heath, who has testified about lethal injection in 11 states, also said he has not found an acceptable method for lethal injection of humans in any state.

Ohio requires its executions to be carried out "in a professional, humane, sensitive and dignified manner."

The two men facing murder charges say the state's lethal injection procedure doesn't give the quick and painless deaths required by state law.

Lethal injections are on hold nationally while the U.S. Supreme Court considers a challenge in a case from Kentucky, which is among the roughly three dozen states that administer three drugs in succession to sedate, paralyze and kill prisoners.

The major criticism of the three-drug execution procedure is that if the executioner administers too little anesthetic or makes mistakes in injecting it, the inmate could suffer excruciating pain from the other two drugs.

Heath testified that the design of Ohio's death house was problematic because it separates the inmate from the person administering the drugs in two separate rooms. The rooms are separated by a one-way mirror.

"Doing it that way substantially increases the risk of a major problem occurring," said Heath, adding later, "I would never induce general anesthesia from a different room through long tubing."

Anesthesiologists always administer drugs while standing next to the patient so they can detect if problems occur, such as a leak or a ruptured vein, Heath said. He also warned drugs could go into the tissue instead of the vein.

Heath said potassium chloride, the third drug administered, which stops the heart, is sometimes used for euthanizing animals. He added that in veterinary procedures the person administering the drug has to be trained in assessing the depth in which the animal is sedated and would have to be present at the bedside.

"That's a major violation or departure from any acceptable veterinary standard," Heath said of Ohio's method.

Other problems that could occur come during the mixing of the anesthetic - sodium thiopental, which is sold in powder form - and the insertion of the catheters in the veins and kinks in the IV tubing, he said.

Difficulties with two executions in recent years, in which the execution team struggled to find suitable veins in inmates' arms, brought complaints that the method is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual. Ohio officials stand by the procedure.

Heath testified on behalf of defendants Ronald McCloud and Ruben Rivera, who are accused of separate murders and could receive death sentences if convicted.

The state was expected to counter with expert witness Dr. Mark Dershwitz, an anesthesiologist from Massachusetts who will testify via video conference Tuesday.

Ohio has executed 26 inmates since it resumed putting prisoners to death in 1999.

Judge orders death row inmate Paul House released


Judge orders death row inmate Paul House released
Freedom scheduled after hearing May 28

BY CHRIS ECHEGARAY • STAFF WRITER • APRIL 8, 2008

The decades-long court saga of convicted rapist and killer Paul House
took a dramatic turn Monday when a federal judge ordered the
condemned man's release from prison.

U.S. District Court Judge Harry S. Mattice Jr. ordered the inmate,
who has multiple sclerosis and uses a wheelchair, released into the
custody of his mother after a May 28 hearing where the court will set
the conditions of his freedom.

"I'm thrilled that he's coming home," House's mother, Joyce House,
said. "He's going to get the medical attention he needs. I hate that
it has taken so long."

House's case is one of many across the nation thrown into doubt with
the advent and advancement of DNA evidence. In 2006, the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled that House was not given a fair trial because the jury
did not hear DNA evidence and other testimony that could have
exonerated him.

The high court sent the case back to the federal courts, where
Mattice last December ordered the state to retry House within 180
days or release him. The state appealed that order, and the case is
pending in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

House, 46, asked the judge in February to release him to his mother's
custody while appeals in his case continue.

During the February hearing, prosecutors argued that House, despite
his infirmities, was a flight risk and a danger to the public. But
Mattice disagreed, according to Monday's court order.

Prosecutors have vowed to retry House if their appeals fail and he is
freed.

But if House is retried, his attorney, Stephen Kissinger, said no
jury will convict him.

"There is no reasonable jury in this country that will convict him
knowing the facts as we know them to be" Kissinger said.

dna disproved rape

House has seen the precarious balance of justice since he was
sentenced to death for the murder and rape of Carolyn Muncey in Union
County, north of Knoxville, in 1985.

Muncey, a young mother of two, had disappeared while her children
slept. Her bludgeoned body was found at the bottom of an embankment
and her husband was the initial suspect.

But later, House, who had moved to Tennessee from Utah after serving
time in jail for aggravated sexual assault, became the prime suspect
and was arrested. He was sentenced to death in 1986.

Two decades later, DNA evidence — semen collected from Muncey's
nightgown and underwear — revealed House did not rape her. The DNA
belonged to her husband.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided that the evidence was strong enough
that a jury would not have convicted House.

House's incarceration has left him without a family, in poor health
and with no future, Joyce House said of her son.

"I mean Paul has told me numerous times that this has given him
hope," Joyce House said. "But he says for what? He says his life is
over. He's never going to get married. They have taken his whole life
for nothing."

House's release should have happened after the U.S. Supreme Court's
ruling, said Stacy Rector, the executive director of Tennessee
Coalition to Abolish State Killing.

"They've gone back and forth and his health is worse," she said.
"Maybe now he'll get the care he needs."

Contact Chris Echegaray at 664-2144 or cechegaray@tennessean.com.



http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080408/NEWS03/804080371/-1/RSS05

Race plays key role in death-row cases, says speaker



ALABAMA:

Race plays key role in death-row cases, says speaker


More often than not, race of the victim and the defendant determines
which criminals land on death row in Alabama, death penalty opponent Bryan
Stevenson told an audience at Auburn Montgomery on Sunday.

Stevenson, who heads the Equal Justice Initiative of Alabama, was the
keynote speaker for this year's AUM Durr Lecture Series, which always
focuses on hot-button civil liberties issues.

Stevenson, who is also a professor at New York University School of Law,
has worked with his staff to win reversals or reduced sentences in over 65
death penalty cases.

Following his talk, Stevenson was presented a framed event poster by AUM
Chancellor John Veres.

Ann Durr Lyon, daughter of Virginia and Clifford Durr, also received a
framed poster. The event is named in honor of Lyons parents and she stays
active in its planning each year.

Her father, Clifford Durr was appointed to the Federal Communications
Commission by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and was instrumental in
obtaining the 1st public educational channel in Alabama.

(source: Montgomery Advertiser)




More often than not, race of the victim and the defendant determines
which criminals land on death row in Alabama, death penalty opponent Bryan
Stevenson told an audience at Auburn Montgomery on Sunday.

Stevenson, who heads the Equal Justice Initiative of Alabama, was the
keynote speaker for this year's AUM Durr Lecture Series, which always
focuses on hot-button civil liberties issues.

Stevenson, who is also a professor at New York University School of Law,
has worked with his staff to win reversals or reduced sentences in over 65
death penalty cases.

Following his talk, Stevenson was presented a framed event poster by AUM
Chancellor John Veres.

Ann Durr Lyon, daughter of Virginia and Clifford Durr, also received a
framed poster. The event is named in honor of Lyons parents and she stays
active in its planning each year.

Her father, Clifford Durr was appointed to the Federal Communications
Commission by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and was instrumental in
obtaining the 1st public educational channel in Alabama.

(source: Montgomery Advertiser)

Number of Innocents on Death Row Mandate Moratorium


John Holdridge

John Holdridge

Number of Innocents on Death Row Mandate Moratorium

Posted April 7, 2008 | 06:57 PM (EST)

Support for the death penalty in the U.S. is at its lowest point in many years. One of the primary reasons is the recent explosion in the number of death-row exonerations, which the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) now puts at 127. In response, some proponents of capital punishment have taken to arguing that many of the freed death-row prisoners are not in fact innocent. But their arguments do not hold up under the slightest of scrutiny.

For example, a March 25 New York Times story by Adam Liptak quotes Oregon prosecutor Joshua Marquis as saying that the number of "authentic" death row exonerations since 1973 is not DPIC's 127 but "more like 30." Mr. Marquis also makes this claim in his frequently-cited article, "The Myth of Innocence."

One problem with this claim is that few Americans would agree with Mr. Marquis's narrow understanding of what it means to be "innocent." In 2005 testimony before Congress, Mr. Marquis submitted a document [PDF ]which denied that my former client, Michael Ray Graham, and his co-defendant Albert Burrell were released from Louisiana's death row because they were innocent. The author of the document claimed that they were released "only because there was insufficient evidence of guilt." In fact, Graham and Burrell were released after the Louisiana Attorney General's Office informed a court that there was "a total lack of credible evidence linking Graham and/or Burrell to the crime."

If a finding of a "total lack of credible evidence" is not enough for Mr. Marquis to consider someone innocent, what is?

Another huge problem with Mr. Marquis' "more like 30" claim is that it is unsupportable. In "Myth of Innocence," he attempts to support the claim by citing both Wall Street Journal column that was critical of the abolition movement but made no attempt to calculate the number of innocent former death row inmates, as well as comments by U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff at a February 2004 seminar held by the Federal Bar Counsel of New York.

Judge Rakoff's comments at the seminar apparently were not recorded. However, in two published opinions in 2002 in the federal death penalty case of United States v. Quinones, Judge Rakoff set forth his analysis of the number of freed death-row prisoners who were innocent. Using what he termed a "conservative" approach, the judge concluded that at least 32 and as many as 40 of the 58 death-row prisoners freed from 1991 through 2002 were factually innocent. What prosecutor Marquis fails either to either recognize or acknowledge is that Judge Rakoff's estimate was based on his review of only the death-row prisoners freed from 1991 through 2002, a number DPIC puts at 58. Judge Rakoff's analysis did not consider or include the 44 death-row prisoners freed before 1991, nor the 25 death-row prisoners freed after 2002.

In short, like the Wall Street Journal article, Judge Rakoff's analysis provides absolutely no support for prosecutor Marquis' claim that the number of "authentic" death row exonerations since 1973 is "more like 30."

Instead of denying the reality that many innocent men and women have been sent to death row, proponents of capital punishment would be wiser to, at the very least, join those who call for a death penalty moratorium while they study whether our broken criminal justice system can be fixed to ensure that only the guilty are sent to their deaths. And if they reach the same conclusion that many of us have -- that fallible human beings cannot create an infallible system of capital punishment -- then they should join those of us who advocate abolition of this barbaric punishment. The moral stakes are simply too high -- both for the innocent people wasting away on death row and for the society that put them there.

Sunday, 6 April 2008

Head Strong: Evidence the Pa. death penalty is punishment existing in name

PENNSYLVANIA:

Head Strong: Evidence the Pa. death penalty is punishment existing in name
only


Maureen Faulkner called me in a panic.

She'd just retrieved a voice mail from Philadelphia Assistant District
Attorney Hugh Burns, alerting her to a federal appellate decision
concerning the man who a jury said murdered her husband.

But her messaging system had garbled the important news. She was desperate
to know whether I'd learned the outcome.

How incredibly sad, I thought. Twenty-six years removed from Danny
Faulkner's execution, and she still jumps when the telephone rings. Hers
is the sort of apprehension a parent experiences when a child is out late
and the nighttime silence is pierced by a ringing phone. Given the
volatility of the case and the endless appeals, she's found no silence
since that early morning knock awakened her Dec. 9, 1981. And it's still
not over. Which is why I believe we need to rethink the death penalty.

By now, we all know the news: While the 1982 conviction of Mumia Abu-Jamal
was upheld, the jury's sentence will not be imposed - short of a
successful appeal by the D.A.'s Office, or a re-reversal at yet another
sentencing hearing.

The death sentence has been stayed, not because of any actual finding of
confusion on the part of the jury, but because a three-judge panel decided
that "the jury instructions and the verdict form created a reasonable
likelihood that the jury believed it was precluded from finding mitigating
circumstance that had not been unanimously agreed upon."

As District Attorney Lynne Abraham summarized for me last week,
"Sometimes, the court substitutes what it believes might have happened for
what really happened - in an abundance of caution. Now, we don't always
agree with this, because the court is saying, 'Well, we think there's the
possibility that there's an ambiguity in the jury form, and we think they
may have been confused.'

"Well, they didn't ask the jury whether they were confused. They're just
thinking for the jury. That's the way the system goes."

The written decision reminded me of something I'd heard when sitting
through the appellate arguments last spring, when one of the lawyers based
his argument on how many words removed from unanimous the word mitigating
appeared on the verdict slip.

Today, that is the technicality sparing Abu-Jamal's life. So, even though
the court has again affirmed Abu-Jamal's guilt, it nevertheless refuses to
allow him to be executed.

It's more proof that the death penalty in the commonwealth is a sham, a
paper tiger, and a form of punishment that exists in name only. Consider
that there are currently 228 individuals on death row in Pennsylvania.
Since capital punishment was reinstated in 1978, 3 people have been put to
death (the last was Gary Heidnick 9 years ago) - and only after each of
the 3 gave up his appeal.

It's time to stop kidding ourselves. The death penalty needs to be removed
from the Pennsylvania sentencing options, at least until the appellate
procedure is streamlined by a legislature willing to oversee judicial
obfuscation.

Apparently, I am not alone in these feelings. Joseph McGill prosecuted
Abu-Jamal in 1982. "You're right, it's something that really takes you
aback when you think about it," he told me. "And I think it comes down
simply to this. . . . A lot of courts do not like the death penalty. They
simply don't like it. Now, I am not saying that they are making up things
just to prevent putting it on. I'm not saying that. I think that they're
in good faith with what they're trying to do. And it is obviously a
tremendously critical decision. All of this I understand.

"But it really comes down to this point . . . if we don't like the death
penalty, if we don't feel that it's appropriate in this commonwealth,
well, let's just get it off the books. And let's not pretend."

Presumably, it's on the books because voters want it, and politicians
covet voter support. But something happens between campaign season and the
appellate process. The judiciary stands in the way. And no one seems to
hold our judges accountable for the roadblocks they erect. In the
meantime, victims are overlooked or forgotten.

Danny Faulkner was one of seven children born to Thomas and Mary Faulkner.
Mary was alive when her son was murdered and attended every day of the
subsequent trial before passing away a few years thereafter. (Thomas, a
trolley driver, died when Danny was a boy.) All of Danny Faulkner's
siblings were alive at the time of his tragic death, but only 2 are with
us today.

In other words, Danny's mother, his 1 sister and 3 of his brothers died
after his murder, but without closure. The same is true for Maureen
Faulkner's parents, who painstakingly accompanied her to the trial in
1982.

Meanwhile, the man who heaped tragedy upon everyone related to the Philly
cop still lives, albeit behind bars. Abu-Jamal is now in his mid-50s.

The Faulkners and the City of Philadelphia were victimized twice: first by
an assailant, a so-called journalist, whose only contribution to the city
he covered is the murder of one of its police officers; 2nd, by a judicial
system content to prescribe a punishment it is unwilling to deliver.

(source: Opinion, Michael Smerconish, Philadelphia Inquirer)

Death penalty no joke to judge


Death penalty no joke to judge

Brad Dicken | The Chronicle-Telegram

ELYRIA — Darth Vader won’t be making an appearance next week when county Common Pleas Judge James Burge holds hearings on the constitutionality of the state’s lethal injection process.

Burge angrily rebuffed defense attorney Jeff Gamso’s suggestion that the three members of the state’s execution team who administer the lethal drugs to condemned inmates hide their identities behind the three masks of the “Star Wars” villain he brought to court Thursday.

“There’s nothing funny here,” Burge said. “We’ve got two guys here who are counting on you to be serious, grown men.”

Gamso, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, had asked Burge to allow the three medically trained execution team members to testify during the hearings. The state has worked hard to keep the identities of all the team members a secret even after Burge ordered the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to turn over details of how the execution process is carried out.

Burge said he would allow the three team members to testify out of the courtroom if it was needed, but he said next week’s hearing would focus on the testimony of two experts who have reviewed the information turned over by the prison system.

Gamso later apologized for the comment about the masks, but Assistant Ohio Attorney General Steve Maher, didn’t accept it.

“The presentation by Mr. Gamso of three Darth Vader masks belies his comments,” Maher said.

Gamso’s request came after Assistant County Prosecutor Tony Cillo had laid out concerns that Burge, a former defense attorney, may already have formed an opinion on the death penalty.

Cillo quoted from numerous newspaper articles detailing Burge’s visits and conversations with his former client, James Filiaggi, who was executed last year for the 1994 murder of his wife.

Burge said he had visited Filiaggi and urged him to join a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the lethal injection process, but he said he did so at the request of Filiaggi’s mother.

“I told him I thought he owed it to his mother to join the lawsuit,” Burge said.

Burge also explained why he keeps a picture of Filiaggi in his office at the county Justice Center.

“Every time I look at the picture, it reminds me of the things I could have done that could have been outcome determinant and maybe made a difference,” Burge said.

Cillo also had questioned the discussions Burge and Gamso, who represented Filiaggi in some of his appeals, had while the two were in Lucasville for the execution last year.

Burge said he told Gamso to talk to attorneys for accused killers Ruben Rivera and Ronald McCloud, who are challenging the lethal injection process on the grounds that the three-drug cocktail used by Ohio and other states doesn’t offer a quick and painless death.

“I have never expressed my view on the constitutionality of the lethal injection process to Mr. Gamso or anyone else for that matter,” Burge said.

Kreig Brusnahan, one of Rivera’s attorneys, called Cillo’s concerns a “thinly veiled effort to get the judge to recuse himself.”

But Burge said he didn’t take it that way. The judge said Cillo made it clear he wanted to make sure Rivera and McCloud were aware of Burge’s history if it came up in a later appeal.

Contact Brad Dicken at 329-7147 or bdicken@chroniclet.com.

A successor to Greenhouse


A successor to Greenhouse

The New York Times indicated on Friday that its new Supreme Court reporter will be Adam Liptak, succeeding Linda Greenhouse, who is headed for an academic appointment at Yale Law School. Mr. Liptak has been The Times’ national legal correspondent.

The internal announcement of the appointment follows (with a few family details omitted for privacy purposes):

“Dean Baquet is pleased to announce that Adam Liptak will be the next Supreme Court reporter, succeeding the estimable Linda Greenhouse.

“By now it is no surprise that Linda Greenhouse will be leaving us for academia. And it is no exaggeration to say that Linda’s run in the Supreme Court was historic. She set the standard, making one of The Times’s premier beats even more vital to the paper, and the country. All I’ll say is that if you want to see the work of someone with total and majestic command of a subject, take a look at Linda’s coverage of the court’s role in Bush v. Gore. We’ll have a lot more to say as we celebrate Linda’s career in the coming months.

“We think we have found exactly the right person to succeed Linda. I am pleased to announce that Adam Liptak will be the paper’s Supreme Court reporter. If Adam’s time as national legal correspondent is any measure, he will continue to make coverage of the court one of the paper’s distinguishing features, something we do better than anyone else in the country.

“Since joining the newsroom in 2002, Adam has covered the Valerie Wilson case and the Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. He has roamed the country bringing life to musty legal cases and fights over judicial ethics, and produced major projects on the criminal justice system. He has also written a must-read column, Sidebar, that has been cited on the floor of the Senate, in Federal appeals and district court decisions, in editorials in The Times and The Washington Post, and on the Colbert Report (I kid you not).

“Before joining the newsroom, Adam was one of our lawyers. And before that he was an associate at the New York firm of Cahill Gordon and Reindel. The resume is impressive. But what impressed me most in my discussions with Adam was his remarkable ability to talk about the law with sweep and simplicity. It was striking that these are the precise qualities that make Linda such a great reporter.”

NOTE: The Supreme Court’s internal newsletter, “Oyez! Oyez!”, had this news earlier in the day Friday.

Burge says he can offer fair hearing in death case


Burge says he can offer fair hearing in death case

ELYRIA - Lorain County Common Pleas Judge James Burge said despite his efforts to save the life of the last inmate executed in Ohio, he can conduct a fair hearing for two death penalty defendants challenging Ohio's method of lethal injection.

The Lorain County Prosecutor's Office pointed out for the court record in a hearing yesterday that Burge has a photograph of James Filiaggi, a former client who was executed in February 2007, in his office.


Prosecutors also mentioned that Burge urged Filiaggi to save his life by joining a federal lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of the death penalty.

But Burge said the state did not ask him to recuse himself from a hearing set for Monday on murder defendants Ronald McCloud's and Ruben Rivera's challenge to lethal injection.

"I've never expressed an opinion to anyone on the constitutionality of lethal injection," Burge said yesterday.

Burge said he keeps Filiaggi's photo in his office as a constant reminder to be at his best all of the time. Filiaggi was convicted of shooting his estranged wife, Lisa Hope Filiaggi, point blank in January 1994 in Lorain.

"I explained that his (case) was my biggest failure of my 31 years of practice," he said.

Burge said he spoke to Filiaggi's mother about joining a federal lawsuit before Filiaggi was executed.

McCloud is accused of raping and killing Janet Barnhard, 57, at the Living Water Christian Fellowship Church in Lorain in June 2005.

Rivera is awaiting trial for the shooting death of Manuel Garcia in Lorain in 2004.

Meanwhile, during yesterday's hearing, Jeffrey Gamso, legal director of the Ohio American Civil Liberties Union who is representing the two men, joked that members of the execution team should wear the Darth Vader masks he had in court to protect their identity, Burge said. The joke angered Burge who gave Gamso a verbal lashing and said he would put him in jail if that behavior continued.

"I shouldn't have lost my temper," Burge said after the hearing.

Kreig Brusnahan, Rivera's co-counsel, said Gamso's move to bring the masks to the hearing was unexpected and appeared to be a poor attempt bring humor to a tense situation.

"I was very surprised," Brusnahan said. "I didn't know what the hell was in that bag."

If necessary, Burge said members of the state execution team would be deposed but not in open court. Burge said his learned in his experience at Filiaggi's execution that members of the execution team do not act as though they are playing the role of Darth Vader.

Lorain County Prosecutor Dennis Will said the information about Burge was put on the record yesterday to make sure McCloud and Rivera understand the proceedings and to preserve it for expected appeals.

"This case could be litigated 10 years down the road," Will said.

Brusnahan said the statements the state offered in court were a poor attempt to try to put Burge in a negative light.

"It's a thinly veiled attempt to cast a negative (portrayal) on the court," he said. "My opinion is that it's a sad day for justice."

The American Civil Liberties Union believes many Ohio death row inmates suffer excruciating, torturous pain during executions. Gamso contends that pain violates federal and state constitutions which forbid cruel and unusual punishment and Ohio law that requires that death be administered "quickly and painlessly."

McCloud's and Rivera's cases are the first in the nation to address these issues before trial and to have the possibility of precluding the death penalty completely, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Filiaggi, at one time a death row volunteer who had given up his appeals to speed his execution, reconsidered days before execution took place and tried to join the federal lawsuit. Federal Judge Gregory Frost denied Filiaggi's request.

Gamso said the issues his side wishes to address are those concerning the execution team members' experience and training.

Assistant Prosecutor Tony Cillo said the state plans to have expert witness Mark Dershwitz, an anesthesiologist from Massachusetts, testify via video. Gamso said Mark Heath, an anesthesiologist and expert witness, is expected to testify on behalf of McCloud and Rivera.

Brusnahan said he anticipates testimony in next week's hearing to last two or more days.

Dead wrong


EDITORIALS

Dead wrong

Find, fix critical errors in N.C. death penalty -- now

He ate bologna when the state of North Carolina let him out. It was his first meal on the outside. But he was served bologna by the state for nearly 14 years as he sat on death row, wrongfully convicted.

Glen Chapman, 40, was released from Central Prison last week after Catawba County District Attorney James Gaither Jr. dismissed murder charges against him. The state, which prosecuted Mr. Chapman, screwed up.

How? Let us count the ways.

• A lead investigator, Dennis Rhoney, lied in his testimony about Mr. Chapman's involvement. He withheld evidence that would have proved Mr. Chapman's innocence.

• Mr. Chapman's trial lawyers did not investigate the case thoroughly, overlooking key evidence that pointed to his innocence.

• A forensic pathologist's report strongly suggested one of the victims might have been a victim of a drug overdose instead of homicide.

This man's trial wasn't just bungled. It was hijacked. And there's an excellent chance that investigators were too busy telling fibs and ignoring evidence to sniff out the real killer.

The scary thing is, this is not an isolated screw-up. Mr. Chapman is the seventh wrongfully convicted death row prisoner in North Carolina to be released, according to the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington. In almost every case, prosecutors and lawyers made key mistakes or omissions, or overlooked conflicting evidence that later proved significant.

That's a mandate for a careful examination of whether the state's criminal justice system can fairly and consistently identify, prosecute and execute first-degree murders in every judicial district.

North Carolina has a de facto moratorium on executions until legal wrangling over the procedure used to administer a lethal injection is settled. Yet the issue is not whether there should be capital punishment for the worst murders. The public supports it. The issue is fairness, and how to fix the fatal flaws in the way it is administered.

Consider what an Observer investigation a few years ago found:

• The death penalty is applied differently in different jurisdictions across the state.

• A murderer's chance of getting a death sentence may depend on the race of the victim.

• Whether an accused murderer gets the death penalty rests heavily on whether he or she gets a good lawyer. Death row prisoners may get whiz-bang appellate lawyers, but many were defended at trial by lawyers who were poorly trained and ill-equipped for the job. Mr. Chapman's representation is a case in point.

With each wrongful conviction that comes to light, the odds increase that the state will execute an innocent person while a killer goes free. That's morally repugnant. Lawmakers should use the de facto moratorium to study, examine and fix critical errors in the state's death penalty.

Saturday, 5 April 2008

As executions slow, Death Row backlog forms


As executions slow, Death Row backlog forms

Legal issues in Ohio, U.S. make timing of capital-punishment resumption unclear

Saturday, April 5, 2008 3:10 AM

ACLU sues on behalf of Canadian on death row

ACLU sues on behalf of Canadian on death row

Randy Boswell, Canwest News Service

Published: Thursday, April 03, 2008

Condemning lethal injection procedures in Montana as "state sanctioned homicide" performed by "untrained individuals," the American Civil Liberties Union has launched a lawsuit in the name of Canadian death-row prisoner Ronald Smith, aiming to halt all executions in the state.

Smith's case is already at the centre of a renewed debate over capital punishment in Canada, where the Conservative government recently reversed a long-standing foreign policy and decided not seek clemency for the Alberta-born double-murderer, who faces a death sentence for killing two Native American men in 1982.

"Botched executions in Florida and Ohio, which use a three-drug protocol similar to Montana, have graphically illustrated how lethal injections go awry, and the great pain and suffering inflicted on condemned prisoners," the ACLU said Thursday. "They show how untrained individuals can mismanage this lethal injection procedure, resulting in prolonged pain and suffering to the condemned."

If successful, an ACLU lawsuit could spare or at least prolong the life of convicted killer Ronald Smith.

If successful, an ACLU lawsuit could spare or at least prolong the life of convicted killer Ronald Smith.

Canwest News Service
The ACLU lawsuit joins a long list of legal challenges that, if successful, could spare or at least prolong the 50-year-old Smith's life.

Along with a sentencing appeal to be heard in U.S. District Court this year, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule this summer in a Kentucky case on whether lethal injection constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" under the American constitution.

In this country, a high-profile team of defence lawyers acting on Smith's behalf has petitioned the Federal Court of Canada to overturn the Conservative government's new clemency policy and force Prime Minister Stephen Harper to seek a commutation of Smith's death sentence from Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer.

The Liberals, NDP, Bloc Quebecois and Green party have all denounced the Harper government's stance on the Smith execution, most recently arguing that Canada's policy in that case is undermining efforts to secure clemency for former Montrealer Mohamed Kohail. The young Canadian man faces a beheading in Saudi Arabia despite widespread doubts about the fairness of his conviction in the alleged murder of a male student in a schoolyard brawl.

In Montana, Smith and the ACLU are arguing that state protections against cruel and unusual punishment are even stronger than those in the U.S. Constitution being tested at the Supreme Court in the Kentucky case.

Thursday's court filing also contends that Smith's "constitutional rights of privacy and human dignity" would be violated by Montana's lethal injection procedure, "a protocol that is not even allowed in the euthanasia of a household pet."

Challenging the legislated secrecy that surrounds executions in Montana, the lawsuit also says Smith "seeks a complete and full listing of the qualifications and training of all past and future participants, executioners, and those on the execution team," including doctors.

Among the lawyers representing the ACLU in the suit is Greg Jackson, chief defence counsel in the Smith case and a vocal critic of Canada's reversal on the clemency issue. Just one day before the Conservative government decided to stop seeking clemency for Smith last October, a meeting that Jackson helped arrange took place at Montana State Prison between the inmate and a Canadian consular official, who assured Smith of Canada's ongoing support in his bid to avoid execution.

Most states bar lethal-injection drug use on animals, study says


AP Texas News

April 4, 2008, 1:56PM
Most states bar lethal-injection drug use on animals, study says

WASHINGTON — Nearly all lethal injection executions have occurred in states where veterinarians are not allowed to use the same method to euthanize animals, according to a new study.

One of the three drugs used in executions, the one that paralyzes the condemned inmate, has been banned from use in animal euthanasia by at least 42 states, said the study author Ty Alper, a death penalty opponent and associate director of the Death Penalty Clinic at the University of California-Berkeley School of Law.

Those states include the five leaders in lethal injections — Texas, Oklahoma, Virginia, Missouri and North Carolina — and account for 907 of the 929 executions that have been carried out by that method since 1982.

Executions have been on hold while the Supreme Court considers a challenge to lethal injections in a case from Kentucky, among the roughly three dozen states that administer three drugs in succession to knock out, paralyze and kill prisoners.

The major criticism of the three-drug procedure is that if the executioner administers too little anesthetic or makes mistakes in injecting it, the inmate could suffer excruciating pain from the other two drugs. Officials overseeing the execution might be unable to detect whether the dying inmate is in pain because the paralyzing drug, most commonly pancuronium bromide, would prevent any changes in expression.

Federal judges in California, Missouri and Tennessee have ruled that the way lethal injections are carried out in those states is unconstitutional, mainly because of the risk of pain in the three-drug method. Yet states have refused to approve injection of a single drug, in part, out of fear that the switch might precipitate a new round of lawsuits to stop executions.

The two death-row inmates who object to Kentucky's method argue that a large enough dose of a barbiturate, the most common way of putting down animals, is a safer, less potentially painful way to carry out executions. Kentucky prohibits using a paralytic in animal killings.

"They use a single drug protocol for animals because it's more humane than the three-drug protocol," Justice John Paul Stevens said at the hearing on the Kentucky case.

Kentucky's lawyer disagreed with Stevens, but Alper said his research into state laws and regulations governing animal euthanasia revealed that concerns about pain motivated decisions to ban the use of the paralytics, which also are called neuromuscular blocking agents.

"This is very relevant to the lethal injection debate," Alper said. "There's a reason why they don't use it and so there's a reason we should be concerned about executions by lethal injection that do use a neuromuscular blocking agent."

Alper's study will be published in an upcoming issue of the Fordham Urban Law Journal. He provided a copy to The Associated Press.

Alper acknowledged that the number of states that prohibit the use of the class of drugs is higher in his study than in other sources.

Virginia, for example, has not previously been counted because state law says nothing about specific drugs and gives the state veterinarian wide leeway in establishing standards. The state vet, in turn, lists the barbiturate pentobarbital, carbon monoxide and any method approved by the American Veterinary Medical Association.

The national veterinarians association has tried to stay out of the debate, emphatically saying on the cover of its 39-page guidelines on euthanasia that the guidelines have been "widely misinterpreted" and are not intended for human lethal injections.

But the guidelines offer some support for the argument against the three-drug method because they contain just one reference to including neuromuscular blocking agents in animal killings. "In zoos and clinical settings, neuromuscular blocking agents are considered acceptable for restraint of reptiles if given immediately prior to administration of a euthanatizing agent," the guidelines say.

Dr. John Dodam, past president of the American College of Veterinary Anesthesiologists, said there is good reason to avoid a drug that can mask a patient's condition. "When we euthanize an animal, we're trying to ensure a humane death," Dodam said. "Unconsciousness can be difficult to evaluate in a patient that is paralyzed."

The paralyzing drugs are useful, however, in cataract, thyroid and other surgeries that require restricting movement, Dodam said.

Eight states have laws and regulations that are silent on the topic. But in Vermont, one of those eight states, paralytics are "absolutely not an approved agent for use by euthanasia technicians," said Dr. Crager Boardman Jr., chairman of the Vermont Euthanasia Board for Animals. The board regulates technicians who carry out euthanasia in animal shelters.

___

On the Net:

Find the study at: http://www.lethalinjection.org

ANESTHETIZING THE PUBLIC CONSCIENCE:

Lethal Injection Procedures Violate Veterinary Standards in Almost Every State, Study Finds

FACULTY

Elisabeth Semel, Director

Ty Alper, Associate Director

For Immediate Release Contacts:

April 4, 2008 Ty Alper, 510-643-7849 (w), 510-593-4227 (c)

Laura Burstein, 202-457-7118


Lethal Injection Procedures Violate Veterinary Standards in Almost Every State, Study Finds

Same Concerns Raised in Current Lethal Injection Challenges Led to Passage of Strict Animal Euthanasia Regulations Decades Ago

The vast majority (97.6%) of lethal injection executions in this country have taken place in states that have banned, for use in animal euthanasia, the same drugs that are used in those states during executions, according to a study to be published this spring in the Fordham Urban Law Journal. An exhaustive review of state laws and regulations concluded that animal euthanasia statutes in 42 states ban, either implicitly or explicitly, the use of paralyzing drugs like those used in lethal injections.

"The very same state legislatures that have decided it would be dangerous and cruel to paralyze animals during the euthanasia process have allowed such a procedure to become routine in human lethal injections," said the study’s author, Ty Alper, Associate Director of the Death Penalty Clinic at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law.

The study, to be published in May in an article entitled Anesthetizing the Public Conscience: Lethal Injection and Animal Euthanasia, contends that previous compilations of states that banned paralyzing drugs in animal euthanasia significantly under-counted the total number. By tracking down administrative regulations in several states, the study was able to establish that almost every state either explicitly prohibits paralyzing drugs in animal euthanasia or mandates an anesthetic-only procedure that does not involve a paralytic. In fact, virtually all of the 9.6 million animals euthanized each year are put to death using a one-drug, anesthetic-only procedure that is simple enough to be used by animal shelter workers who are not trained in veterinary medicine.

The study answers a question raised during oral argument in the Baze v. Rees case currently pending in the United States Supreme Court. Several of the justices wondered aloud why states had passed laws banning paralyzing drugs in animal euthanasia, and what the relevance of those laws was to the current lethal injection debate. "The answer is that these laws were passed due to the very same concerns about paralyzing drugs that are being raised in lethal injection challenges," says Alper.

————————————————————————————————

BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • MERCED • RIVERSIDE

————————————————————————————————

—————————————–——————————————-———

SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO • SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ

——————————————–——————————————-——

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

DEATH PENALTY CLINIC

CENTER FOR CLINICAL EDUCATION

SCHOOL OF LAW (BOALT HALL)

BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94720-7200

"Veterinarians and animal welfare advocates were concerned that any euthanasia procedure that involved the paralyzation of the animal risked exposing the animal to conscious suffering and excruciating pain."

Advocates for death row inmates have raised challenges to the three-drug formula used in lethal injections, in large part because of the second drug used in the procedure. This drug, pancuronium bromide, paralyzes the inmate, rendering him unable to cry out or indicate in some way if the first drug, the anesthetic, has not been administered properly. Thus, there is serious concern that, if the prison officials do not properly administer the anesthesia, inmates will suffer both the conscious suffocation caused by the paralyzing drug and the excruciating pain of the third drug, potassium chloride – all without indicating any observable distress.

"We found that the same concerns animated the animal euthanasia laws," says Alper. For example, the study cites a 1987 letter from an animal rights advocate in Connecticut, urging the state legislature not only to mandate lethal injection for animal euthanasia, but to specifically ban paralyzing drugs. "Please do not assume that the phrase ‘lethal injection’ is adequate to prevent the animal’s suffering," the letter states, and then goes on to describe the horror of death by conscious asphyxiation.

Legislative history in other states confirmed that many state legislatures were well aware of the dangers of paralyzing drugs as many as 30 years ago. "It’s no secret in the veterinary community that using a paralyzing agent when euthanizing an animal is dangerous and inhumane," says Alper. "Many of these state statutes passed unanimously, decades ago, with very little dissent."

Some of the states that have the most explicit ban on paralyzing drugs are among the most active when it comes to the death penalty. Florida’s law, for instance, has mandated since 1984 that paralyzing drugs "may not be used on a dog or cat for any purpose." Yet Florida’s newly-minted lethal injection protocol calls explicitly for the inmate to be paralyzed before the lethal potassium chloride is administered.

As for why states continue to use a lethal injection procedure that does not conform to veterinary standards, Alper said he can only speculate. "It cannot be that they do not understand the dangers of the paralyzing drug, and it cannot be that they do not know there is a simple and readily-available alternative," he said.

The study is available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1109258

and at www.lethalinjection.org

.

For more information on lethal injection, please visit www.lethalinjection.org. For more information about the Death Penalty Clinic, please visit www.deathpenaltyclinic.org.

###

Florida House approves compensation bill for Alan Crotzer... again.



Florida House approves compensation bill for Alan Crotzer... again.



http://injusticeserved.blogspot.com/2008/04/florida-house-approves-compensation.html

On March 26th, 2008 the Florida House of Representatives passed a bill to compensate Alan Crotzer a sum of $1.25 million and 120 credit hours of higher education for the agony he endured being wrongfully imprisoned for 24 years. The compensation bill amounts to $50,000 for every year Crotzer spent in prison.

Alan Crotzer was wrongfully convicted in 1982 for robbery, kidnapping, and rape. He was sentenced to 130 years in prison, but was exonerated and freed in January of 2006 when analysis of DNA evidence proved his innocence.

Only 20 years old when he was unjustly imprisoned, by the time he was released in 2006 Alan Crotzer had spent more years of his life behind bars than as a free man.

Last year, the House passed a similar bill awarding Crotzer restitution, but the bill was quashed by the Senate due to budgetary concerns – Crotzers claim was rejected after the state was made to pay $5 million in compensation for the wrongful death suit filed by the parents of Martin Lee Anderson, a teenager who perished under suspicious circumstances at a municipal boot camp for juveniles.

After the first bill was impeded in the Senate, Alan Crotzer said that members from both houses and Governor Charlie Crist offered apologies to him. Governor Crist and many members in the Florida Senate have affirmed their intent to sign the current bill proposing a settlement for Crotzer.