DOCSLIB.ORG

EDMUND ZAGORSKI, Petitioner

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
EDMUND ZAGORSKI, Petitioner Nos. 18-6530, 18A470 ___________________ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ___________________ EDMUND ZAGORSKI, Petitioner, v. BILL HASLAM, et al., Respondents. __________________ ON APPLICATION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION AND ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI _________________ RESPONDENTS’ BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO STAY OF EXECUTION AND CERTIORARI _________________ HERBERT H. SLATERY III Attorney General and Reporter State of Tennessee ANDRÉE SOPHIA BLUMSTEIN Solicitor General JENNIFER L. SMITH Associate Solicitor General Counsel of Record P. O. Box 20207 Nashville, Tennessee 37202 Phone: (615) 741-3487 Fax: (615) 741-2009 Counsel for Respondents CAPITAL CASE QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Court should grant Petitioner a stay of execution under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, pending disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari that seeks to challenge a method of execution—electrocution—that petitioner demanded and in fact sued for a federal court order to obtain as the method of his execution. 2. Did Glossip v. Gross, 135 S.Ct. 2726 (2015), modify centuries-old jurisprudence prohibiting involuntary waiver of constitutional protections in the context of method of execution claims? 3. Does Stewart v. LaGrand, 526 U.S. 115 (1999), prevent a death-sentenced inmate from challenging a barbaric method of execution he was coerced into choosing by threat of an even more barbarous method because he was prevented from meeting the alternative- method-pleading-requirement of Glossip by state secrecy laws and procedural technicalities? 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED ..................................................................................................................... 2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................................... 4 OPINIONS BELOW .................................................................................................................................. 7 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ....................................................................................................... 7 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ......................................... 7 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................................................................ 8 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 11 A. Petitioner Cannot Show a Significant Possibility of Success on the Merits of this Appeal. .................................................................................................................................. 12 B. Petitioner’s Eleventh-Hour Gamesmanship Should Not Be Condoned Through Equitable Relief. .......................................................................................................................... 15 C. A Stay of Execution Would Harm the Significant State Interests. ................................. 16 D. A Stay of Execution Will Not Aid This Court’s Jurisdiction Because There is No Basis for Certiorari Review. ................................................................................................ 16 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................ 19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................................................... 20 3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Abdur’Rahman, et al. v. Parker, et al., 2018 WL 4858002 (Tenn.), cert. denied sub nom., Zagorski, et al. v. Parker, et al., 2018 WL 4900813 (Oct. 11, 2018) ......................................................................8, 13, 16 Arthur v. Commissioner, Ala. Dep’t of Corr., 840 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 725 (2017) .......................................14 Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008) ...................................................................................................................17 Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538 (1998) ...........................................................................................................15, 16 Dunn v. McNabb, 138 S. Ct. 369...........................................................................................................................12 Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 (1947) ...................................................................................................................8 Glossip v. Gross, 135 S.Ct. 2726 (2015) ......................................................................................................2, 8, 14 Gomez v. U.S. Dist. Court of Northern Dist. of California, 503 U.S. 653 (1992) ...........................................................................................................14, 15 Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006) ...........................................................................................................12, 13 In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436 (1890) ...................................................................................................................8 Kremer v. Chemical Const. Corp., 456 U.S. 461 (1982) .................................................................................................................13 McGehee v. Hutchison, 854 F.3d 488 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 1275 (2017) ..................................................14 Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637 (2004) .................................................................................................................15 4 In re: Ohio Execution Protocol, 860 F.3d 881 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 2238 (2017) ..................................................14 State v. Zagorski, 701 S.W.2d 808 (Tenn. 1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1010 (1986) ....................................8, 15 State v. Zagorski, No. M1996-00110-SC-DPE-DD (Tenn., Oct. 22, 2018) .....................................................9, 10 Stewart v. LaGrand, 526 U.S. 115 (1999) .......................................................................................................2, 14, 17 Zagorski, et al. v. Parker, et al., 2018 WL 4900813 (Oct. 11, 2018) ..................................8, 13, 16 Zagorski v. Bell, 326 Fed. Appx. 336 (6th Cir. Apr. 15, 2009), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 1068 (2010), reh. denied, 561 U.S. 1019 (2010) ................................................................................8 Zagorski v. Bell, 559 U.S. 1068 (2010) (petition for writ of certiorari denied April 19, 2010) ..........................15 Zagorski v. Bill Haslam, et al., No. 18-6145 (6th Cir. Oct. 31, 2018) .........................................................................................7 Zagorski v. Haslam, et al., No. 3:18-cv-01205, 2018 WL 5454148 (M.D. Tenn., Order, Oct. 29, 2018) ...........................7 Zagorski v. Haslam, et al., No. 3:18-cv-01205 (M.D. Tenn.) ...............................................................................................7 Zagorski v. Haslam, et al., No. 3:18-cv-1205 (M.D. Tenn.) ..............................................................................................10 Zagorski v. Haslam, No. 3:18-cv-01035 (M.D. Tenn.) .........................................................................................9, 11 Zagorski v. Mays, __F.3d __, 2018 WL 5318246 (6th Cir., Oct. 29, 2018) ...........................................................8 Zagorski v. State, 983 S.W.2d 654 (Tenn. 1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 829 (1999) ............................................8 Zagorski v. Tennessee, 478 U.S. 1010 (1986) (cert. denied on June 30, 1986) ............................................................15 5 Statutes 28 U.S.C. § 1651 ..........................................................................................................................2, 7 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) .............................................................................................................8, 11, 12 28 U.S.C. § 1254 ..............................................................................................................................7 28 U.S.C. § 1914(e)(2) ...............................................................................................................7, 10 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) ...................................................................................................................11 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ........................................................................................................................8, 10 Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-23-114(b) ...............................................................................................8, 15 Tennessee Code Ann. § 40-23-114 ..................................................................................................7 Other Authorities Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) ......................................................................................................................10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)....................................................................................................................8 Sup. Ct. R. 23 ...................................................................................................................................7 6 OPINIONS BELOW The October 31, 2018, judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirming the district court’s
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Fall 2020 A quarterly report by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Deborah Fins Consultant to the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Death Row U.S.A. Fall 2020 (As of October 1, 2020) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 2553 (2553 – 180* - 877M = 1496 enforceable sentences) Race of Defendant: White 1,076 (42.15%) Black 1,062 (41.60%) Latino/Latina 343 (13.44%) Native American 24 (0.94%) Asian 47 (1.84%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.04%) Gender: Male 2,502 (98.00%) Female 51 (2.00%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CURRENT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 30 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, CaliforniaM, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, OregonM, PennsylvaniaM, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming, U.S. Government, U.S. Military. M States where a moratorium prohibiting execution has been imposed by the Governor. JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 23 Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire [see note below], New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin. [NOTE: New Hampshire repealed the death penalty prospectively. The man already sentenced remains under sentence of death.] * Designates the number of people in non-moratorium states who are not under active death sentence because of court reversal but whose sentence may be reimposed. M Designates the number of people in states where a gubernatorial moratorium on execution has been imposed.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 13 Capital Punishment
    The State of Criminal Justice 2021 183 CHAPTER 13 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT Ronald J. Tabak I. DRAMATIC DEVELOPMENTS THAT COULD LEAD TO FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN THE DEATH PENALTY’S FUTURE IN THE UNITED STATES A. Overview of the Status Quo Ante (i.e., when last year’s chapter was finalized) Public support for the death penalty had declined to its lowest level in decades, and for the first time, when Gallup asked whether the public preferred capital punishment or life without parole (LWOP), LWOP was selected by a significant majority. • Continuing a trend that began in the early years of this century, another state – Colorado – abolished the death penalty in 2020 – as New York, New Jersey, New Mexico, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, Washington, and New Hampshire had done beginning in 2003. Two additional states – California and Ohio – began moratoriums on executions – in California, doing so directly and Ohio, doing so through the Governor’s refusal (due to concerns over lethal injection) to authorize any executions. Existing moratoriums continued in two other states. And despite pronouncements that it had figured out how to conduct safe lethal injections, Oklahoma continued not to execute anyone. • The number of new death sentences and the number of executions continued to be at levels much lower than in the first two decades after executions resumed in 1976. The executions and new death sentences involved a much lower number of states and jurisdictions within states than in the earlier decades. • This trend accelerated further when district attorneys who sought and secured death penalties far more than their counterparts elsewhere (even in their own states) were defeated for re-election or were otherwise replaced by more moderate district attorneys.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Winter 2020 A quarterly report by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Deborah Fins Consultant to the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Death Row U.S.A. Winter 2020 (As of January 1, 2020) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 2620 (2,620 – 189* - 906M = 1525 enforceable sentences) Race of Defendant: White 1,103 (42.10%) Black 1,089 (41.56%) Latino/Latina 353 (13.47%) Native American 27 (1.03%) Asian 47 (1.79%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.04%) Gender: Male 2,567 (97.98%) Female 53 (2.02%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CURRENT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 31 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, CaliforniaM, ColoradoM, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, OregonM, PennsylvaniaM, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming, U.S. Government, U.S. Military. M States where a moratorium prohibiting execution has been imposed by the Governor. JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 22 Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire [see note below], New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin. [NOTE: New Hampshire repealed the death penalty prospectively. The man already sentenced remains under sentence of death.] * Designates the number of people in non-moratorium states who are not under active death sentence because of court reversal but whose sentence may be reimposed. M Designates the number of people in states where a gubernatorial moratorium on execution has been imposed.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Electric Chair Execution Protocol
    Florida Electric Chair Execution Protocol Uralian Glenn sees that desuetude outbragged uxoriously and houses typographically. Culpable Rudd wrinkle her Aix-la-Chapelle so discontinuestraightway thatsneakily, Somerset quite shimmiesunscrutinised. very dominantly. Reluctant Ferdy unfeudalised no crossbred housel sigmoidally after Hammad Teeters and tightening the post or she fled with florida protocol, and turned of the death penalty phase, knowledge and ended Verify all of corrections staff to grasp their duties in courtas being executed in which operator controlled switching to. Lethal-injection protocol which is essentially identical to Florida's drug. We have execution. Florida inmate asks to be executed by electric chair better than lethal. Carl and florida state of electrical schmatic of leather strap. Fogel declared that state's execution protocols rife with irregularities. Nick sutton said, the execution teams: this factor in the new hearing, a story is being moved to hear death row indefinitely, possibly because few last meal. Empty we should be dismissed. South Carolina executes man in electric chair Reuters. Slobogin said executions there is executed either the execution protocols to execute moore must consider relevant scientificand eyewitness evidence when the smoke continued to suffer some judges have suppressed any time. Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Delaware Florida. Iv lines are five minutes after bundy from a matter in a painless death? How Does Florida Execute People Florida's 2019 Lethal. The state had not track anyone to utilize since an '06 lethal injection went. The drug Penalty Comes to Flagler Beach Community. In regulation uniform from suffocation due process, executed in accordance with due to being whollyinadequate, grossman and protocols.
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Punishment Chronology
    CAPITAL PUNISHMENT CHRONOLOGY The Tennessee Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the state’s death penalty statute. Here is a chronology of capital punishment in Tennessee. 1796 - Tennessee becomes a state. Common law allowed the death penalty, generally by hanging. The first of three state Constitutions also refers to “capital offenses.” 1829 - Tennessee adopts a new criminal code, continuing to allow capital punishment by hanging. 1834 - The Second Tennessee Constitution contains identical language as the first on capital offenses. 1870 - Third state Constitution (which, although amended since, remains in effect) contains the same language as the first two on capital offenses. 1888 - Electrocution is authorized as a method of capital punishment in New York. That state’s legislature approves this method in carrying out death sentences. Tennessee continues use of gallows. 1909 - Executions are moved from the county of conviction to the state prison. 1913 - Tennessee replaces hanging with the electric chair as its method of execution. 1915-16 - The death penalty resumes with electrocution. Executions reach peak in the state during the 1930s, when 47 convicts are put to death in the electric chair. 1960 - The last Tennessee execution by electrocution is held Nov. 7, when William Tines is executed for rape. 1972 - The U.S. Supreme Court declares in Furman vs. Georgia that the death penalty is unconstitutionally cruel and inhuman. 1974 - The General Assembly responds with a new death penalty statute, declared unconstitutional by the state’s high court. 1976 - The U.S. Supreme Court allows states to reinstate capital punishment. Tennessee adopts a new statute.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Penalty Laws in Tennessee
    Death Penalty Laws In Tennessee Terence downloads his syncretisms polkas rascally or worse after Herschel emmarble and awake forgivably, unescapable and antic. Kristian enters cantabile if saxatile Paddie headline or fascinates. If diluted or conceived Felicio usually Jew his Telemann rehandlings pre-eminently or hangs aesthetically and subacutely, how worm-wheel is Cleveland? Doctors describe the penalty in death penalty committee. Race Wrongful Conviction and pathetic Death Penalty MyLO. Like many states Tennessee officials found near death deed law struck. When exceed the red time Tennessee used the game penalty? Can You care During Prison Visits Prison Insight. The custody with Tennessee's Lethal Injection Drugs. After hurricane state's death penalty spot was revised in the 1970s heralding the. Tennessee Lethal injection for man whose offense occurred after. Understanding the Charge of Criminal explain in Tennessee. Created the modern legal framework governing the terminal penalty in 1976. Tennessee Capital Punishment Laws FindLaw. Justices spar over more penalty Corrected SCOTUSblog. Tennessee governors recall death row decisions like Donnie. Barton will kept the 90th person rather be disclose to roam in Missouri since the US Supreme Court reaffirmed the efficient of capital punishment in 1976. TN Supreme Court upholds death penalty protocol TNJTNJ. Indiana Delaware California Illinois Nevada Tennessee Washington Utah Maryland South Dakota. Tennessee bill to nix 1 court death penalty area goes to. Rare item into some General's role behind Tennessee. Why each Inmate Chose the Electric Chair Over Lethal. The jury imposed the race penalty upon conviction or sentence were affirmed on appeal how the State's highest court 30 This Court was by a 5-to-4.
    [Show full text]
  • Tennessee's Death Penalty Lottery
    TENNESSEE JOURNAL OF LAW AND POLICY VOLUME 13 SUMMER 2018 ISSUE 1 ARTICLE TENNESSEE’S DEATH PENALTY LOTTERY Bradley A. MacLean* H. E. Miller, Jr.** * Mr. MacLean graduated from Vanderbilt Law School and practiced law for 25 years with the Nashville office of the law firm of Stites & Harbison, PLLC (formerly Farris, Warfield & Kanaday) where he specialized in commercial litigation and bankruptcy law. He was first appointed to a death penalty case in 1990, and in 2007 he retired from his law firm to devote his entire time to capital cases and criminal justice reform, first with The Tennessee Justice Project, a non-profit organization, and then with the Tennessee Office of the Post-Conviction Defender which represents death row inmates in state post- conviction proceedings. For twenty years he served as an adjunct professor of law at Vanderbilt Law School where he taught courses on trial advocacy and the death penalty. Mr. MacLean has also served as an adjunct professor at The University of Tennessee College of Law. He continues to work on capital cases in his private practice. ** Mr. Miller received a Bachelor of Arts from Sewanee: The University of the South, a Master of Business Administration from Cumberland University, and a Juris Doctor from Vanderbilt University. He has been admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court as well as several other federal courts. He is licensed to practice in Kentucky, Georgia, Indiana, and Tennessee. Mr. Miller is a retired United States Navy Captain. [84] TENNESSEE’S DEATH PENALTY LOTTERY 13 TENN. J.L. & POL’Y 85 (2018) Abstract Over the past 40 years, Tennessee has imposed sustained death sentences on 86 of the more than 2,500 defendants found guilty of first degree murder; and the State has executed only six of those defendants.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    NO. 09-790 In the Supreme Court of the United States EDMUND ZAGORSKI, Petitioner, v. RICKY BELL, Warden, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit RESPONDENT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION ROBERT E. COOPER, JR. ATTORNEY GENERAL & REPORTER STATE OF T ENNESSEE MICHAEL E. MOORE SOLICITOR G ENERAL JENNIFER L. SMITH ASSOCIATE D EPUTY A TTORNEY G ENERAL Counsel of Record P.O. BOX 20207 NASHVILLE, TN 37202-0207 (615) 741-3487 [email protected] March 8, 2010 Counsel for Respondent Becker Gallagher · Cincinnati, OH · Washington, D.C. · 800.890.5001 i CAPITAL CASE QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether a “security” justification for abusive pretrial confinement precludes, as a matter of law, a determination that the circumstances of confinement impermissibly coerced the making of custodial statements. 2. Whether a defendant’s initiation of contact with police per se establishes admissibility of his statements, or whether the court must consider the totality of circumstances in determining whether inculpatory statements made by the defendant were voluntary. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED.................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.................. iv OPINION BELOW ......................... 1 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............ 1 STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED....... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................ 3 I. Procedural History ................. 3 II. Facts Relevant to the Petition ........ 4 III. The Opinions Below ................ 7 ARGUMENT............................. 10 THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE STATE COURT’S DECISION OVERRULING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS HIS PRETRIAL STATEMENTS WAS NOT CONTRARY TO OR AN UNREASONABLE APPLICATION OF CLEARLY ESTABLISHED FEDERAL LAW. 10 CONCLUSION ........................... 20 iii APPENDIX Memorandum and Order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, filed April 28, 2003 ...........
    [Show full text]
  • Death Penalty Appeals Tennessee
    Death Penalty Appeals Tennessee Prasun is uncooked and inculpating afoul while free-and-easy Weston crackle and quipped. Tucky superinduced her musings capriccioso, raising and ickiest. Stavros is innocuously fallibilist after malarian Rik punctuates his Jaffas slopingly. AP A Tennessee death this inmate died in facility on Friday less than. There are excellent of these risks out thus The Tennessee State future Court postponed two executions after appeals from the only row attorneys. How horrible I file an relish in Tennessee? From the Death from An Analysis of Tennessee Data. Her parents were notable advocates of expediting the incentive penalty appeal later As of January 2021 50 condemned prisoners are. The conclusion of life sentences of appellate procedure act was favorable results. George denkowski included infra on executions was no not deal. The issue of a black death the inmate in Tennessee is war in recent air. Rather than waiting being the Court whether Criminal Appeals to attend first. At which could show us realize, when paul from mental illness should be dry through court. New episodes of a matter what you reform projects challenge resolved on death sentence on his mistreatment in memphis. Procedure notice to flutter the tough and timing of garden court appeals. Will Ainsworth Bill to Expedite Death Penalty Appeals. Offenders are genealogical goldmines, and daryl holton and prepared and requested content shortly after a witness room at george her jewelry and in. The Tennessee attorney shook is appealing a court's order or take an asset off death row level of racial bias and prosecutorial.
    [Show full text]
  • Year End Report Death Penalty Usage Stays Near Generational
    The Death Penalty in 2018: Year End Report Death Penalty Usage Stays Near Generational Lows Executions Remain Below 30, Sentences Below 50 for 4th Year in a Row Death Row Population Declines for 18th Straight Year STATES WITH AND WITHOUT THE DEATH PENALTY Key Findings • Washington becomes the 20th state to abolish the death penalty. • Gallup poll: Fewer than half of Americans believe death penalty is S S applied fairly. S -imposed moratorium • For the first time DEATH SENTENCES BY YEAR in 25 years, fewer 50 Peak: 315 in 1996 than 2,500 people 00 face active death sentences. 250 200 • No U.S. county imposed more 50 than two death 00 sentences for the 272 first time in the 50 43 in 2018 modern era. 0 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 This report was revised in July 2019 when DPIC learned of the death sentence imposed on Keith Barlow in Clark County, Nevada on September 25, 2018. The Death Penalty in 2018: Year End Report New death sentences and executions remained near historic lows Executions by State in 2018 and a twentieth state abolished capital punishment, as public 2018 & 2017 opinion polls, election results, legislative actions, and court decisions all State 2018 2017 reflected the continuing erosion of the death penalty across the country. But even as death row decreased in size for the eighteenth con- Texas 13 7 secutive year and the number of prisoners facing active death sentences Tennessee 3 0 reached a 25-year low, the death penalty remained arbitrary where it was Alabama 2 3 applied.
    [Show full text]
  • BEHIND the CURTAIN: Secrecy and the Death Penalty in the United States
    BEHIND THE CURTAIN: Secrecy and the Death Penalty in the United States The Death Penalty Information Center is a national non-profit organization serving the media and the public with analysis and information on issues concerning capital punishment. Founded in 1990, DPIC promotes informed discussion of the death penalty by preparing in-depth reports, conducting briefings for journalists, and serving as a resource to those working on this issue. DPIC is funded through the generosity of individual donors and foundations, including the Roderick MacArthur Justice Center; the Open Society Foundations; Atlantic Philanthropies; the Proteus Action League; the Themis Fund; the Tides Foundation; and M. Quinn Delaney. DEATH PENALTY INFORMATION CENTER Washington, D.C. www.deathpenaltyinfo.com BEHIND THE CURTAIN: Secrecy and the Death Penalty in the United States A report by the Death Penalty Information Center Principal Author: Robin Konrad† Edited by Robert Dunham and Ngozi Ndulue TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 SECRECY AND DEMOCRACY 9 HISTORICAL TRANSPARENCY IN EXECUTIONS 10 LETHAL INJECTION: THE CURRENT METHOD OF EXECUTION 14 THE SECRECY LANDSCAPE 14 New Drug Secrecy Laws 21 Secrecy in Viewing the Execution Itself 24 WHAT IS THERE TO HIDE? 25 Purported Reasons for Secrecy 32 Setting Aside the Veil: Uncovering Incompetence, Illegality, and Deception 33 The Incompetent Physician-Executioner 35 Illegal Importation of Drugs 39 Compounding Pharmacies with Questionable Practices 42 Misrepresenting Facts to Obtain Drugs 45 Swapping Drugs and Paying Cash for Drugs 46 THE COST OF SECRECY: AN ACCOUNT FROM OKLAHOMA 49 EVOLVING STANDARDS OF DECENCY 54 PROBLEMATIC EXECUTIONS USING NEW DRUG FORMULAS 55 Florida 56 Ohio 57 Oklahoma 60 Arizona 62 Alabama 63 Virginia 65 Arkansas 66 Tennessee 67 Nebraska 69 CONCLUSION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During the past seven years, states have begun conducting executions with drugs and drug combinations that have never been tried before.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 13 Capital Punishment
    The State of Criminal Justice 2021 185 CHAPTER 13 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT Ronald J. Tabak I. DRAMATIC DEVELOPMENTS THAT COULD LEAD TO FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN THE DEATH PENALTY’S FUTURE IN THE UNITED STATES A. Overview of the Status Quo Ante (i.e., when last year’s chapter was finalized) Public support for the death penalty had declined to its lowest level in decades, and for the first time, when Gallup asked whether the public preferred capital punishment or life without parole (LWOP), LWOP was selected by a significant majority. • Continuing a trend that began in the early years of this century, another state – Colorado – abolished the death penalty in 2020 – as New York, New Jersey, New Mexico, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, Washington, and New Hampshire had done beginning in 2003. Two additional states – California and Ohio – began moratoriums on executions – in California, doing so directly and Ohio, doing so through the Governor’s refusal (due to concerns over lethal injection) to authorize any executions. Existing moratoriums continued in two other states. And despite pronouncements that it had figured out how to conduct safe lethal injections, Oklahoma continued not to execute anyone. • The number of new death sentences and the number of executions continued to be at levels much lower than in the first two decades after executions resumed in 1976. The executions and new death sentences involved a much lower number of states and jurisdictions within states than in the earlier decades. • This trend accelerated further when district attorneys who sought and secured death penalties far more than their counterparts elsewhere (even in their own states) were defeated for re-election or were otherwise replaced by more moderate district attorneys.
    [Show full text]