DOCSLIB.ORG

In the Supreme Court of Florida Case No. 06-1055

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In the Supreme Court of Florida Case No. 06-1055 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 06-1055 MICHAEL A. GRIFFIN, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA INITIAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT MARTIN J. MCCLAIN Florida Bar No. 0754773 McClain & McDermott, P.A. 141 N.E. 30th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33334 (305) 984-8344 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT 1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This proceeding involves the appeal of the circuit court’s denial of a postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing. The following symbols will be used to designate references to the record in this appeal: “R.” -- record on direct appeal to this Court; “1PC-R.” -- record on appeal of denial of first Rule 3.851 motion; “2PC-R.” -- record on appeal of denial of this second Rule 3.851 motion. 2 ii REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT Mr. Griffin has been sentenced to death. The resolution of the issues involved in this action will therefore determine whether he lives or dies. This Court has not hesitated to allow oral argument in other capital cases in a similar procedural posture. A full opportunity to air the issues through oral argument would be more than appropriate in this case, given the seriousness of the claims involved and the stakes at issue. Mr. Griffin, through counsel, accordingly urges that the Court permit oral argument. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ........................................ i REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ................................... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................... iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................... v STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS............................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .......................................... 7 STANDARD OF REVIEW ........................................... 9 ARGUMENT.................................................... 10 ARGUMENT I MR. GRIFFIN SHOULD HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS LETHAL INJECTION CLAIM AS WAS PROVIDED TO IAN LIGHTBOURNE, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN SUMMARILY DENYING MR. GRIFFIN’S CLAIM THAT NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES THAT EXECUTION BY LETHAL INJECTION IS CRUEL AND/OR UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT AND VIOLATES MR. GRIFFIN’S RIGHTS UNDER THE EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION........ 10 A. IN LIGHT OF THE EVENTS OCCURRING DURING MR. DIAZ’S EXECUTION, MR. GRIFFIN SHOULD BE GRANTED AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON HIS LETHAL INJECTION CLAIM. 11 B. THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN DENYING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON MR. GRIFFIN’S LETHAL INJECTION CLAIM. 23 ARGUMENT II THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN STRIKING MR. GRIFFIN’S CLAIM III AND IN DENYING MR. GRIFFIN’S MOTION TO AMEND WITH CLAIM III, WHICH ALLEGED THAT THE STATE WITHHELD IMPORTANT EVIDENCE DURING PRIOR PROCEEDINGS THAT IMPEACHED ITS CLAIM THAT THE SENTENCING ORDER IN MR. GRIFFIN’S CASE WAS NOT THE PRODUCT OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATION AND DID NOT VIOLATE MR. GRIFFIN’S RIGHT iv TO AN INDEPENDENT SENTENCING ORDER PREPARED BY THE SENTENCING JUDGE. ................................. 28 A. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN STRIKING CLAIM III.... 29 B. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DENYING LEAVE TO AMEND WITH CLAIM III................................ 30 C. THE CLAIM REQUIRES AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING...... 32 ARGUMENT III MR. GRIFFIN’S CONVICTION AND SENTENCE ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER RING V. ARIZONA. ............ 38 CONCLUSION.................................................. 51 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...................................... 51 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ................................... 52 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998)....... 45 Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972)....................... 48 Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) .......38, 45, 46, 48 Arbelaez v. State, 775 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2000) ................ 25 Banks v. Dretke, 124 S. Ct. 1256 (2004)...................... 32 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) .................... 29, 33 Card v. State, 652 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1995) ................ 25, 32 Cardona v. State, 826 So.2d 968 (Fla. 2002) .................. 33 Chaky v. State, 651 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1995) .................. 44 Cleveland Bd. Of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985).... 23 Davis v. State, 703 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1998) .................. 51 Flanning v. State, 597 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1992) ......... 48 Gaskin v. State, 737 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1999) ........... 9, 25, 32 Gorham v. State, 597 So.2d 782 (Fla. 1992) ................... 33 Griffin v. State, 2004 Fla. LEXIS 104 (Fla. 2004) ............. 2 Griffin v. State, 639 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1994) .................. 1 Griffin v. State, 866 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2003) ................ 2, 28 Griffin v. State, 894 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 2005) .............. 2, 30 Grossman v. State, 525 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1988) ................ 50 Harris v. United States, 122 S. Ct. 2406 (2002) .......... 46, 47 Hoffman v. State, 800 So.2d 174 (Fla. 2001) .................. 33 vi In Re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436 (1890)........................... 23 Johnson v. Butterworth, 713 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 1998) ....... 29, 32 Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356 (1972) .................... 48 Jones v. Butterworth, 691 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1997) ............. 27 Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999) .................. 38 Jorgenson v. State, 714 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 1998) ............... 44 Kormondy v. State, 845 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 2003) ................. 43 Lightbourne v. Dugger, 549 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 1989) ............ 9 Lightbourne v. McCollum, Fla. Sup. Ct. Case No. SC06-2391 (Fla. Dec. 14, 2006) .......................................... 10, 27 Lightbourne v. State, Fla. Sup. Ct. Case No. SC06-1241 (Fla. April 16, 2007) ......................................... 10, 11 Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 (1947).... 23 Maharaj v. State, 684 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1996) ............. 25, 32 Maharaj v. State, 778 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 2000) ................. 35 McConnell v. State, 102 P.3d 606 (Nev. 2004) ................. 42 McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79 (1986) ................. 46 Mills v. Moore, 786 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 2001) ................... 39 Mordenti v. State, 894 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 2004) ................ 36 Morton v. State, 789 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2001) .................. 51 Patton v. State, 784 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2000) .................. 25 Peede v. State, 748 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 1999) .................... 9 Porter v. State, 564 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 1990) ................. 42 Provenzano v. Moore, 744 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1999) .............. 27 vii Ring v. Arizona, 122 S. Ct. 2428 (2002).... 7, 38, 39, 45, 47, 49 Roberts v. State, 840 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 2002) ................. 35 Rogers v. State, 782 So.2d 373 (Fla. 2001) ................... 33 Roman v. State, 528 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1988) ................... 33 Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania, 537 U.S. 101 (2003) ........... 40, 48 Sims v. State, 754 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2000) ............. 7, 26, 27 State v. Dixon, 283 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1973) ..................... 46 State v. Glatzmayer, 789 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 2001) ............... 9 State v. Gunsby, 670 So.2d 920 (Fla. 1996) ................... 33 State v. Hugins, 788 So.2d 238 (Fla. 2001) ................... 33 State v. Overfelt, 457 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 1984) ............... 49 Stephens v. State, 748 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 1999) ................ 9 Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) ..................... 33 Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993) ............... 49, 50 Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 (1990)................... 39, 50 Williams v. State, 438 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 1983) ................ 48 viii STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS Mr. Griffin was indicted in the circuit court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, on one count of first degree murder, two counts of grand theft, aggravated assault, petit theft, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. These acts allegedly occurred on April 27, 1990. Mr. Griffin's trial was conducted from January 31, 1991 to February 8, 1991. The jury returned guilty verdicts on February 8, 1991. At the conclusion of the penalty phase, February 14, 1991, the jury recommended a sentence of death by a vote of 10-2 (R. 3836- 38). On March 7, 1991, the trial court sentenced Mr. Griffin to death (R. 3882). On direct appeal, this Court affirmed Mr. Griffin's convictions and sentences. Griffin v. State, 639 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1317 (1995).1 Mr. Griffin 1In his direct appeal, Mr. Griffin argued that due process was violated by the introduction of evidence of uncharged criminal activity, that his statements were unconstitutionally introduced into evidence when the police had withheld necessary medical treatment until after a statement was provided, that his right to an unbiased penalty phase jury was violated by the introduction of prejudicial evidence during the guilt phase that was inadmissible at the penalty phase, that his right to introduce mitigating evidence was unconstitutionally restricted, that the sentencing judge had erroneously found that the homicide happened in the course of a burglary even though the burglary was technically and legally complete prior to the homicide, and that the sentencing failed to properly apply the ix filed a motion to vacate his judgment and sentence on March 18, 1997. He subsequently amended it. His second amended motion was filed on December 10, 1999. The circuit court granted a limited evidentiary hearing on September 15, 20, 21 and 22, 2000, and October 19 and 20,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • UNITED STATES of AMERICA the Execution of Mentally Ill Offenders
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA The execution of mentally ill offenders I cannot believe that capital punishment is a solution – to abolish murder by murdering, an endless chain of murdering. When I heard that my daughter’s murderer was not to be executed, my first reaction was immense relief from an additional torment: the usual catastrophe, breeding more catastrophe, was to be stopped – it might be possible to turn the bad into good. I felt with this man, the victim of a terrible sickness, of a demon over which he had no control, might even help to establish the reasons that caused his insanity and to find a cure for it... Mother of 19-year-old murder victim, California, November 1960(1) Today, at 6pm, the State of Florida is scheduled to kill my brother, Thomas Provenzano, despite clear evidence that he is mentally ill.... I have to wonder: Where is the justice in killing a sick human being? Sister of death row inmate, June 2000(2) I’ve got one thing to say, get your Warden off this gurney and shut up. I am from the island of Barbados. I am the Warden of this unit. People are seeing you do this. Final statement of Monty Delk, mentally ill man executed in Texas on 28 February 2002 Overview: A gap in the ‘evolving standards of decency’ The underlying rationale for prohibiting executions of the mentally retarded is just as compelling for prohibiting executions of the seriously mentally ill, namely evolving standards of decency. Indiana Supreme Court Justice, September 2002(3) On 30 May 2002, a jury in Maryland sentenced Francis Zito to death.
    [Show full text]
  • The Chair, the Needle, and the Damage Done: What the Electric Chair and the Rebirth of the Method-Of-Execution Challenge Could M
    Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy Volume 15 Article 5 Issue 1 Fall 2005 The hC air, the Needle, and the Damage Done: What the Electric Chair and the Rebirth of the Method-of-Execution Challenge Could Mean for the Future of the Eighth Amendment Timothy S. Kearns Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cjlpp Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Kearns, Timothy S. (2005) "The hC air, the Needle, and the Damage Done: What the Electric Chair and the Rebirth of the Method-of- Execution Challenge Could Mean for the Future of the Eighth Amendment," Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy: Vol. 15: Iss. 1, Article 5. Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cjlpp/vol15/iss1/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE CHAIR, THE NEEDLE, AND THE DAMAGE DONE: WHAT THE ELECTRIC CHAIR AND THE REBIRTH OF THE METHOD-OF-EXECUTION CHALLENGE COULD MEAN FOR THE FUTURE OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT Timothy S. Kearnst INTRODUCTION ............................................. 197 I. THE ELECTROCUTION CASES ....................... 201 A. THE KEMMLER DECISION ............................ 201 B. THE KEMMLER EXECUTION ........................... 202 C. FROM IN RE KMMLER to "Evolving Standards" ..... 204 II. THE LOWER COURTS ................................ 206 A. THE CIRCUIT COURTS ................................. 206 B. THE STATE COURTS .................................. 211 C. NEBRASKA - THE LAST HOLDOUT ..................
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row Witness Reveals Inmates' Most Chilling Final Moments
    From bloodied shirts and shuddering to HEADS on fire: Death Row witness reveals inmates' most chilling final moments By: Chris Kitching - Mirror Online Ron Word has watched more than 60 Death Row inmates die for their brutal crimes - and their chilling final moments are likely to stay with him until he takes his last breath. Twice, he looked on in horror as flames shot out of a prisoner's head - filling the chamber with smoke - when a hooded executioner switched on an electric chair called "Old Sparky". Another time, blood suddenly appeared on a convicted murderer's white shirt, caking along the leather chest strap holding him to the chair, as electricity surged through his body. Mr Word was there for another 'botched' execution, when two full doses of lethal drugs were needed to kill an inmate - who shuddered, blinked and mouthed words for 34 minutes before he finally died. And then there was the case of US serial killer Ted Bundy, whose execution in 1989 drew a "circus" ​ ​ outside Florida State Prison and celebratory fireworks when it was announced that his life had been snuffed out. Inside the execution chamber at the Florida State Prison near Starke (Image: Florida Department of ​ Corrections/Doug Smith) 1 of 19 The electric chair at the prison was called "Old Sparky" (Image: Florida Department of Corrections) ​ Ted Bundy was one of the most notorious serial killers in recent history (Image: www.alamy.com) ​ Mr Word witnessed all of these executions in his role as a journalist. Now retired, the 67-year-old was tasked with serving as an official witness to state executions and reporting what he saw afterwards for the Associated Press in America.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Summer 2013 A quarterly report by the Criminal Justice Project of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Deborah Fins, Esq. Consultant to the Criminal Justice Project NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Death Row U.S.A. Summer 2013 (As of July 1, 2013) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 3,095 Race of Defendant: White 1,334 (43.10%) Black 1,291 (41.71%) Latino/Latina 391 (12.63%) Native American 33 (1.07%) Asian 45 (1.42%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.03%) Gender: Male 3,034 (98.03%) Female 61 (1.97%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CURRENT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 35 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, U.S. Government, U.S. Military. JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 18 Alaska, Connecticut [see note below], District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico [see note below], New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin. [NOTE: Connecticut and New Mexico repealed the death penalty prospectively. The men already sentenced in each state remain under sentence of death.] Death Row U.S.A. Page 1 In the United States Supreme Court Update to Spring 2013 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2012 and October Term 2013 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS Article I § 10 Ex Post Facto Clause Peugh v.
    [Show full text]
  • On Andy Warhol's Electric Chair
    On Andy Warhol's Electric Chair Bennett Caperst [T]he room conveys a hypnotic stillness. The chair itself is luminous, bathed in a clear wash of light that seems to come from a skylight over- head. The still space is framed right and left by three shadowy black door- ways, functioning like ominous sentinels guarding the scene. The horizontal geometry created by the sprinklers, the wall, and the floor is calm. The austere, isolated chair sits on a rectangularfloorplate. The fa- mous "silence" sign is framed against a black door. The image is silent and expectant. I INTRODUCTION In June 2003, the Andy Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh mounted an exhibition of Warhol's iconic Electric Chair print series-ten large-scale prints along with several smaller prints and paintings-as a catalyst to gen- erate discourse on the issue of capital punishment.2 The project, Andy Warhol's Electric Chairs:Reflecting on Capital Punishment in America, which came two years after the execution of Timothy McVeigh and shortly after the decision by Illinois Governor George Ryan to commute all death sentences in that state,3 raised significant questions about the social utility and morality of the death penalty. Copyright ) 2006 California Law Review, Inc. California Law Review, Inc. (CLR) is a California nonprofit corporation. CLR and the authors are solely responsible for the content of their publications. t Associate Professor of Law, Hofstra Law School. B.A. Princeton University; J.D. Columbia Law School. Assistant U.S. Attorney 1995-2004. My thanks to Jessica Gogan, Assistant Director for Education and Interpretatoin at The Andy Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Seth Michael Forman of the School of Visual Arts in New York, the staff of the Ossining Historical Society Museum in Ossining, New York, and Jospeh Masheck of the Art History Department of Hofstra University.
    [Show full text]
  • FLORIDA DEATH CASES WHERE NON-STATUTORY MITIGATORS WERE FOUND a Chronological List, by Date of Sentence
    FLORIDA DEATH CASES WHERE NON-STATUTORY MITIGATORS WERE FOUND A Chronological List, by Date of Sentence This update: 8/6/15; 265 pages Compiled by: Theresa E. Farley, Research Assistant to: Dr. Michael Radelet, Professor Department of Sociology, University of Colorado Campus Box 483, IBS Boulder, Colorado 80309 303-735-5811 (office) * * * * * * * Defendant's name: WILLIE DARDEN Sentenced to death on 01/19/74 in Citrus County Trial Counsel: RAYMOND TODD GOODWILL (public defender) Trial judge JOHN DEWELL found 2 non-statutory mitigators: Good prison record from previous incarcerations Unwavering declaration of innocence * * * * * * * Defendant's name: THOMAS HALLIWELL Sentenced to death on 05/03/74 Hillsborough County Trial Counsel: JAMES S. PARHAM (privately retained) FSC on direct appeal found mitigating factors that trial judge HERBOTH S. RYDER failed to find including 2 non-statutory: Highly decorated Green Beret in Vietnam war Under emotional strain over the mistreatment of Sandra Tresch and was greatly influenced by her * * * * * * * Defendant's name : FRANZ PETER BUCKREM Sentenced to death on 05/15/75 in Sarasota County Trial Counsel: GALE K. GREENE (privately retained) 1 FSC on direct appeal found mitigating factors that trial judge ROY E. DEAN failed to find including 3 non-statutory: Drinking the night the homicide was committed Previous altercation with victim and was obviously disturbed Was gainfully employed * * * * * * * Defendant's name: GLEN MARTIN Sentenced to death on 10/10/75 in Volusia County Trial Counsel: LOUIS OSSINSKY (privately retained) Trial judge URIEL BLOUNT found 1 non-statutory mitigator: Suffers from sickle cell anemia * * * * * * * Defendant's name : RODNEY MALLOY Sentenced to death on 05/01/76 in Polk County Trial Counsel: DENNIS MALONEY (public defender) FSC on direct appeal found a basis for jury recommendation of life that Trial Judge ROY E.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Brief of Appellant
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. PEDRO MEDINAR Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, App81188. ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF THE EIGHTH AND NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUITS, IN AND FOR BRADFORD AND ORANGE COUNTIES, STATE OF FLORIDA INITIAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT MARTIN J. MCCLAIN Litigation Director Florida Bar No. 0754773 JENNIFER Me COREY Assistant CCR Florida Bar No. 0999717 OFFICE OF THE CAPITAL COLLATERAL REPRESENTATIVE Post Office Drawer 5498 Tallahassee, FL 32314-5498 (904) 487-4376 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT PRELIMINARY 8TATEMENT This proceeding involves the appeal of the circuit court's denial of Mr. Medina's motion for post-conviction relief. The motion was brought pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850. The following symbols will be used to designate references to the record in this appeal: llR"-- record on direct appeal to this Court; ItPC-Rw1 -- record on instant 3.850 appeal to this Court (two volumes numbered pages 1 through 359); "11/7/89 T." -- transcript of proceedings conducted 11/7/89 (one volume numbered pages 1-41); "Supp. RI" -- supplemental volume I (one volume numbered pages 1 through 3); "Supp. RIIII -- supplemental volume I1 (six volumes, all denoted "Supplemental vol. 11,Il numbered pages 1-1148; 1 volume denoted IISupplemental vol. VIII,llnumbered pages 1149-1156); "Def. Ex." -- exhibits submitted at the evidentiary hearing; IIAPP.~~-- appendix to Rule 3.850 motion; rrH.tr -- Transcript of 1988 evidentiary hearing testimony. i INTRODUCTION Pedro Medina is both crazy and innocent. This case is reminiscent of the John Purvis case. See Purvis v. Dusser, 932 F.2d 1413 (11th Cir.
    [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]
  • Response to Motion
    Electronically RECEIVED on June 07, 2021 Electronically FILED on June 07, 2021 Appellate Court Clerk Appellate Court Clerk IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) Movant, ) KNOX COUNTY v. ) No. M2020-01156-SC-DPE-DD ) CAPITAL CASE CHRISTA GAIL PIKE, ) ) Trial Court No. 58183A Defendant. ) DEFENDANT CHRISTA PIKE’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE STATE’S MOTION TO SET EXECUTION DATE AND REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF COMMUTATION Christa Gail Pike opposes the State’s motion to set an execution date and asks this Court for a Certificate of Commutation. Extenuating circumstances exist because Christa Pike was only eighteen at the time of this offense and suffering from severe mental illness along with organic brain damage. Her youth, her sexual victimization and traumatic upbringing, as well as her severe mental illness justify a commutation of the death sentence by this Court. Alternatively, Ms. Pike requests this Court deny the State’s motion because that motion is premature. Setting an execution date is premature because the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has reviewed Ms. Pike’s Petition requesting issuance of precautionary measures, determined that she is at serious and urgent risk of irreparable harm, and requested that the United 1 States refrain from carrying out the death penalty on Christa Pike until the IACHR can complete its investigation. Furthermore, setting an execution date at this time is also premature because TDOC safety measures in response to the COVID pandemic have precluded completing a current mental health evaluation. The State has just begun reopening and prisons have only recently begun allowing experts to conduct in-person evaluations.
    [Show full text]
  • Death in Florida
    USA DEATH IN FLORIDA GOVERNOR REMOVES PROSECUTOR FOR NOT SEEKING DEATH SENTENCES; FIRST EXECUTION IN 18 MONTHS LOOMS Amnesty International Publications First published on 21 August 2017 by Amnesty International Publications International Secretariat Peter Benenson House 1 Easton Street London WC1X 0DW United Kingdom www.amnesty.org Copyright Amnesty International Publications 2017 Index: AMR 51/6736/2017 Original Language: English Printed by Amnesty International, International Secretariat, United Kingdom All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publishers. Amnesty International is a global movement of 3 million people in more than 150 countries and territories, who campaign on human rights. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments. We research, campaign, advocate and mobilize to end abuses of human rights. Amnesty International is independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. Our work is largely financed by contributions from our membership and donations Table of Contents Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1 ‘Bold, positive change’ not allowed ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Marks 30 Years Since Death Penalty's Return
    Fla. marks 30 years since death penalty's return By RON WORD Associated Press Editor's note: An information box about death row inmates May 26 incorrectly associated Paul A. Brown with the murder of Howard Wetherell. Wetherell’s murderer was Richard England. Brown was sentenced to die for the Nov. 4, 1992 slaying of a Tampa concrete contractor found stabbed to death on the floor of his Ormond Beach motel room. JACKSONVILLE -- Three decades have passed since Florida resumed executions when John Spenkelink was strapped into Old Sparky and electrocuted, the nation's first involuntary execution after a Supreme Court ban was lifted. Since then, the state has executed another 64 men and two women. Florida has changed its execution method from the electric chair to lethal injection, and the conflict over the death penalty remains as heated as it was 30 years ago. There have been several botched executions and former Gov. Jeb Bush once imposed a moratorium to review the state's procedures and make sure they passed constitutional muster. "I don't know how you put someone to death and it not be somewhat controversial," said Richard Dugger, who was assistant warden at Florida State Prison when Spenkelink was executed and later head of the Department of Corrections. Spenkelink, 30, was executed May 25, 1979, for the slaying of traveling companion Joseph Syzmankiewicz in a Tallahassee motel -- Dugger became somewhat notorious for giving him a couple shots of Jack Daniels whiskey just before his death. In his trial, Spenkelink had claimed he had been raped and the death was self-defense.
    [Show full text]
  • A First Amendment Challenge to Lethal Injection Secrecy
    What You Don’t Know Will Kill You: A First Amendment Challenge to Lethal Injection Secrecy NATHANIEL A.W. CRIDER* The conventional cocktail of drugs used in lethal injection executions has been sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride. However, in 2011, the sole manufacturer of sodium thiopental in the Unit- ed States, Hospira, Inc., restricted the distribution of the drug to prevent it from being used in executions.1 In response, states are now experimenting with drugs like pentobarbital, midazolam and hydromorphone in execu- tions.2 Furthermore, several states have obtained, or intend to obtain, death penalty drugs from compounding pharmacies, entities which have recently come under intense scrutiny for their lack of regulatory oversight and production of sub-standard drugs.3 The most alarming development, however, is the secrecy that has accompanied lethal injection executions in recent years.4 For example, some states, like Georgia, have passed statutes that make information about the source of the drugs and the professional qualifications of the lethal injection participants a confidential state se- cret.5 Understandably, much discussion about lethal injection drugs and the states’ lethal injection protocols is focused on the Eighth Amendment * Executive Managing Editor, COLUM. J. L. & SOC. PROBS., 2014–15. J.D. Candi- date 2015, Columbia Law School. The author would like to thank Professor Jeffrey Fagan for support and guidance in writing this Note, and the Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems board and staffers for their hard work in making it fit to print. Any er- rors in this Note are purely the fault of the author.
    [Show full text]