DOCSLIB.ORG

Death Row Inmates

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Death Row Inmates IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE ABU-ALI ABDUR’RAHMAN, et al, ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) No. M2018-01385-SC-RDO-CV ) v. ) Davidson County Chancery Court ) Case No. 18-183-III TONY PARKER, et al, ) ) Defendants-Appellees ) ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGEMNT OF THE CHANCERY COURT BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS KELLEY J. HENRY, BPR# 21113 Supervisory Asst. Federal Public Defender KATHLEEN MORRIS AMY D. HARWELL, BPR#18691 42 Rutledge Street Asst. Chief, Capital Habeas Unit Nashville, TN 37210 JEROME C DELPINO, BPR# 025911 Phone: (615) 242-3200 Asst. Federal Public Defender Fax: (615)-242-3206 RICHARD TENNENT,BPR# 16931 Attorney for Plaintiff Hall Asst. Federal Public Defender KATHERINE DIX, BPR#022778 BRADLEY MACLEAN Asst. Federal Public Defender ATTORNEY AT LAW Office of the Federal Public Defender 1702 Villa Place for the Middle District of Tennessee Nashville, TN 3212 810 Broadway, Suite 200 Phone: (615) 943-8716 Nashville, TN 37203 Attorney for Abdur’Rahm Phone: (615) 736-5047 Fax: (615) 736-5265 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Abdur’Rahman, Bane, Black, Bland, Burns, Carruthers, Chalmers, Dellinger, Duncan, Henderson, Hines, Hodges, Hugueley, Jahi, Ivy, Johnson, Jordan, Keen, Middlebrooks, Miller, Morris, Payne, Powers, Rogers, Sample, Smith, Wright, Zagorski Document receivedbytheTNSupremeCourt. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................. 9 STATEMENT OF ISSUES .......................................................................................... 10 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..................................................................................... 13 STANDARD OF REVIEW ........................................................................................... 38 I. Standard of review regarding constitutional claim ......................................... 38 II. Constitutional principles governing the distinction between and a facial versus an as-applied challenge ......................................................................... 39 STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................... 43 I. The Science: The testimony of four expert witnesses, representing four different scientific perspectives.. ...................................................................... 43 a. Dr. Stephens, PhD, neuropharmacologist. ................................................. 43 1. Dr. Stevens provided an abbreviated version of a year-long, graduate- level course on Central Nervous System Pharmacology; he explained the crucial concept “mechanism of action.” ........................................... 44 A. The central nervous system is made up of, approximately, 86 billion neurons, that each have, roughly, 10,000 connections to other neurons—it is these connections that produce the essential nature of neurons; at each connection neurons ‘speak’ with a very simple language of excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmitters........................................................................ 44 B. Three basic mechanisms of action: (1) independent effect on the brain; (2) enhancement of other chemicals in the brain; (3) blocking of other chemicals in the brain. .................................... 45 Document receivedbytheTNSupremeCourt. i C. The basic terminology of sedation: “the plane of general anesthesia” is crucial, only at this level is a human rendered insensate to pain. ......................................................................... 46 D. Diagramming basic neuropharmacological principles. .................... 47 2. The single, limited mechanism of action of Midazolam, compared with the multiple mechanisms of more potent pharmaceuticals .................. 49 A. The GABA receptor ...................................................................... 50 B. Midazolam has a single mechanism of action, while Pentobarbital has three mechanisms; due to this scientific reality Midazolam is not capable of causing the same effects as Pentobarbital. .............................................................................. 51 i. Different mechanisms of action, different uses. .................... 54 ii. Anesthetic gases have five-mechanisms of action; like barbiturates, they both increase inhibition and block excitation; this makes them yet more potent, and again illustrates the limitations of Midazolam. .............................. 55 C. Because of Midazolam’s single limited mechanism of action it has a ceiling effect, and it can never--regardless of dose--render a human insensate to pain, or unarousable by noxious stimuli; it can never bring a human to a plane of general anesthesia. ...... 57 i. The ceiling effect is not some magical property of Midazolam: other medications such as aspirin have ceiling effects. ......... 58 ii.There are two attributes to a ceiling effect: (1) maximum potency and (2) the dose at which maximum potency is reached. ...... 58 iii. The scientific proof of Midazolam’s ceiling: (1) mechanism of action, (2) real world experience and (3) peer reviewed scientific studies. ..................................................................... 59 Document receivedbytheTNSupremeCourt. ii iv.Larger doses do not change the mechanism of action; a 500 mg dose of Midazolam cannot break through the ceiling. ........... 60 3. The painful pharmacological effects of the three-drugs in Tennessee’s protocol: inmates will suffer severe pain and terror. ............................ 61 A. Midazolam is a strong acid, pH 3.0; 100 ml of acid is an immense quantity of acid to inject into a human being. ............................ 61 B. Vecuronium bromide is a paralytic, which will first paralyze the small muscles of the face, preventing obvious reaction, then the limbs, and finally the lungs, causing suffocation. ...................... 62 C. Potassium chloride is a depolarizing chemical that activates every pain-sensing neuron in the body; it will stop the human heart, causing death. ................................................................................. 63 4. Dr. Stevens’ final conclusions about the neuropharmacological impact of the three-drug protocol: it will cause severe pain and mental anguish; a two-drug protocol that did not include vecuronium would be less painful and cause less suffering; a one-drug protocol using Pentobarbital, if done properly, would not involve pain at all ............. 64 b. The Testimony of David J. Greenblatt, M.D., Louis Lasagna Endowed Professor of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics at Tufts University School of Medicine and special and scientific research staff at Tufts Medical Center ................................................................................... 65 Document receivedbytheTNSupremeCourt. iii 1. Dr. Greenblatt has an excellent record as an academic and medical scientific researcher that spans more than 40 years, focusing on benzodiazepine drugs ............................................................................. 66 2. Dr. Greenblatt participated in the earliest research on Midazolam in the United States which became part of its review and approval for use by the F.D.A. ........................................................................................... 68 3. Dr. Greenblatt testified in agreement with Dr. Stevens on the pharmacology of Midazolam .................................................................. 68 4. Dr. Greenblatt was unequivocal in his opinion that Midazolam is incapable of inducing a level of anesthesia where a person would be insensate to the torturous effects of vecuronium bromide and potassium chloride as used in the Tennessee lethal injection protocol .................................................................................................... 69 A. Midazolam’s effects are based on a physical function in brain cells that is innately limited, which limits the effect of the drug .............................................................................................. 69 B. Midazolam is not used alone to induce general anesthesia; where it is used alone as a sedative it is because it allows a patient to be roused during a procedure ..................................... 71 C. There is a “ceiling effect” – a limit on the sedative effect – for Midazolam that has been demonstrated in scientific research . 72 D. Dr. Greenblatt studied patients who ingested massive overdoses of benzodiazepines and found that they were in a sedated state where they were still capable of being roused and responded to noxious stimuli ............................................................................. 76 E. Dr. Greenblatt testified that the injection of Midazolam in the Tennessee lethal injection protocol will not protect a person being executed from experiencing the torturous effects of the second and third chemical sin the protocol ................................ 79 5. Dr. Greenblatt testified that the pharmacokinetics of Midazolam create a time delay in the onset of its effects that make it certain that it will not have induced its peak sedative effect by the time vecuronium bromide and potassium chloride are injected into an inmate under the Protocol ................................................................................................... 81 Document receivedbytheTNSupremeCourt. iv 6. Because of the pH of Midazolam
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Amended Brief of Appellants' to Include Table of Authorities
    TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................. 9 STATEMENT OF ISSUES .......................................................................................... 10 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..................................................................................... 13 STANDARD OF REVIEW ........................................................................................... 38 I. Standard of review regarding constitutional claim ......................................... 38 II. Constitutional principles governing the distinction between and a facial versus an as-applied challenge ......................................................................... 39 STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................... 43 I. The Science: The testimony of four expert witnesses, representing four different scientific perspectives.. ...................................................................... 43 a. Dr. Stephens, PhD, neuropharmacologist. ................................................. 43 1. Dr. Stevens provided an abbreviated version of a year-long, graduate- level course on Central Nervous System Pharmacology; he explained the crucial concept “mechanism of action.” ........................................... 44 A. The central nervous system is made up of, approximately,
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ______
    RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 09a0168p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ BILLY R. IRICK, X Petitioner-Appellant, - - - No. 01-5638 v. - > , RICKY BELL, Warden, Riverbend Maximum - Security Institution, - - Respondent-Appellee. - N Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville. No. 98-00666—Curtis L. Collier, Chief District Judge. Argued: December 11, 2008 Decided and Filed: May 12, 2009 Before: SILER, BATCHELDER, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: C. Eugene Shiles, SPEARS, MOORE, REBMAN & WILLIAMS, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for Appellant. James E. Gaylord, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: C. Eugene Shiles, SPEARS, MOORE, REBMAN & WILLIAMS, Chattanooga, Tennessee, Howell G. Clements, CLEMENT & CROSS, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for Appellant. James E. Gaylord, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee. BATCHELDER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which SILER, J., joined. GILMAN, J. (pp. 16-22), delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. 1 No. 01-5638 Irick v. Bell Page 2 _________________ OPINION _________________ ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Billy Ray Irick is on Tennessee’s death row for the rape and murder of seven-year-old Paula Dyer. Irick appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He argues that prosecutors failed to provide defense counsel with a statement of the victim’s mother, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and that the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument in the trial’s penalty phase.
    [Show full text]
  • TJLP (2006) Volume 2 Number 2
    Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy Volume 2 Issue 2 Article 1 May 2014 TJLP (2006) Volume 2 Number 2 Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/tjlp Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation (2014) "TJLP (2006) Volume 2 Number 2," Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy: Vol. 2 : Iss. 2 , Article 1. Available at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/tjlp/vol2/iss2/1 This Full Issue is brought to you for free and open access by Volunteer, Open Access, Library Journals (VOL Journals), published in partnership with The University of Tennessee (UT) University Libraries. This article has been accepted for inclusion in Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy by an authorized editor. For more information, please visit https://trace.tennessee.edu/tjlp. 2:2 TENNESSEE JOURNAL OF LAW & POLICY 140 The Tennessee Journal of Law & Policy is published three times per year and edited by students of the University of Tennessee College of Law. The publisher is The Tennessee Journal of Law & Policy, 1505 W. Cumberland Ave., Knoxville, Tennessee 37996-1810. The subscription rate is $24.00 per volume, $9.00 per single issue. Unless notice to the contrary is received, The Tennessee Journal of Law & Policy assumes that a renewal of the subscription is desired. All claims of non-receipt of an issue should be made within six months of date of publication if claimant wishes to avoid paying for the missing issue. To order back issues, contact The Tennessee Journal of Law & Policy, 1505 W. Cumberland Ave., Knoxville, Tennessee 37996-1810. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to: The Tennessee Journal of Law & Policy, 1505 W.
    [Show full text]
  • AUG 09 2010 in the SUPREME COURT of TENNESSEE at NASHYILLE Clerk of the Courts
    FILED AUG 09 2010 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHYILLE Clerk of the Courts IN RE: * KNOX comm * BILLY RAY IRICK * SUPREME COURT NO. 180 * * DEATH PENALTY MOTION TO RECONSIDER DENIAL OF MOTION TO VACATE EXIECUTION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO RESCHEDULE COMPETENCY HEARING SET FOR AUGUST 16,2010 Comes the defendant, and respectfully urges this court to reconsider its denial of his motion to vacate his execution. In the alternative, he moves this court, pursuant to Tenn.S.Ct.R. 12.4(a) and Van Tran v. State, 6 S.W.3d 257, 267 (Tenn. 1999), to pass indefinitely the competency hearing currently set to begin on Monday, August 16,2010 in the Knox County Criminal Court, Division I, andlor to set a new scheduling order. In its previous order of August 4,20 10, this court stated that requests for stays of execution to allow for ongoing federal proceedings should be filed with the relevant federal court. However, there has been a change of circumstances in that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee issued a Memorandum and Order on August 6,20 10 reopening defendant's first habeas corpus proceedings. (See Exhibit 1). Furthermore, this court may pass or reschedule the competency hearing without necessarily entering a stay of petitioner's execution. The basis for seeking to pass or reschedule the competency hearing is the necessity of avoiding an unnecessary hearing which, if held as currently scheduled, will not be proximate to an imminent execution date because of the ongoing habeas proceedings which include opportunities to obtain a certificate of appealability to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and application of writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court in the event of adverse rulings.
    [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]
  • Supreme Court of the United States ______RICHARD E
    No. 14-7955 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ___________ RICHARD E. GLOSSIP, ET AL., Petitioners, v. KEVIN J. GROSS, ET AL., Respondents. ___________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ___________ JOINT APPENDIX – VOLUME I ___________ JON M. SANDS PATRICK R. WYRICK * FED. PUBLIC DEFENDER OKLAHOMA OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL DALE A. BAICH 313 N.E. 21st Street ROBIN C. KONRAD * Oklahoma City, OK 73105 850 West Adams Street (405) 522-3921 Suite 201 [email protected] PHOENIX, AZ 85007 (602) 382-2816 [email protected] SUSAN OTTO FED. PUBLIC DEFENDER W. DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA PATTI PALMER GHEZZI RANDY A. BAUMAN 215 Dean A. McGee Avenue Suite 707 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 (405) 609-5975 Additional counsel on inside front cover Counsel for Petitioners Counsel for Respondents March 9, 2015 * Counsel of Record PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED: JAN. 13, 2015 CERTIORARI GRANTED: JAN. 23, 2015 MARK E. HADDAD ALYCIA A. DEGEN AMANDA V. LOPEZ COLLIN P. WEDEL SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 (213) 896-6000 PETER D. KEISLER JEFFREY T. GREEN JACQUELINE G. COOPER SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 736-8000 Counsel for Petitioners TABLE OF CONTENTS Page United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, No. 5:14-cv-665, Rele- vant Docket Entries ........................................... 1 United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, No. 14-6244, Relevant Docket Entries 22 Motion in Limine, Warner v.
    [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]
  • Knox County Criminal Court
    IN THE CRIMINAL COURT FOR KNOX COUNTY, TENNESSEE DIVISION I STATE OF TENNESSEE V. CASE NO. 24527 BILLY RAY IRICK, ALIAS STATE’S RESPONSE TO PETITION TO DETERMINE PRESENT INCOMPETENCY TO BE EXECUTED Comes the State of Tennessee, by and through the District Attorney General for the Sixth Judicial District, in response to the Petition to Determine Present Competency to be Executed, filed by Mr. Billy Ray Irick, in this case. The State asserts that the Defendant has failed to meet the required threshold to support his claim of present competency to be executed as established by the Tennessee Supreme Court in Van Tran v. State, 6, S.W.3d 257 (Tenn. 1996). Accordingly, his petition should be denied without further hearing. A. Introduction. Mr. Billy Ray Irick is currently incarcerated at the Riverbend Maximum Security Institution in Nashville, Tennessee. Mr. Irick is on death row for the 1985 rape and murder of Paula Dyer. In 1985, Mr. Irick confessed to the anal rape, vaginal rape and murder of this seven- year-old girl. On November 3, 1986, a jury sentenced Mr. Irick to death for the murder of Miss Dyer. The Tennessee Supreme Court recently set an execution date for Mr. Irick of December 7, 2010. The Defendant has filed a claim that he is presently incompetent to be executed and this claim was referred to this Court under the provisions of Van Tran v. State, 6 S.W.3d 257 (Tenn. 1999). This matter is now before this Court to determine whether the petitioner has made a sufficient showing of present incompetency, so as to qualify for a hearing on this issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Response to State's Motion to Reset Execution Date
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENN1SEE AT NASHVILLE STATE OF TENNESSEE, LE COURT GLEN t4ASKvalf Movant, No. M1987-0013 l-SC-DPE-DD V. BILLY RAY TRICK, Defendant, INITIAL REPONSE TO STATE'S MOTION TO RESET EXECUTION DATE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE A MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE AS TO DEFENDANT'S PRESENT COMPETENCY - ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED Comes the defendant, Billy Ray Irick, and provides the following initial response to the state's motion to reset his execution date. In the alternative, he respectfully moves this court for additional time in which to file a supplemental response regarding his present competency to be executed. Prior to a decision being rendered, defendant requests the opportunity to present his arguments orally before this honorable court. Introduction: As more fully explained below, the state's motion should be denied/deferred at this time because important constitutional and/or equitable issues which may void his verdict of guilt and/or sentence of death are currently being litigated in the Federal District Court in the Eastern District of Tennessee. (3:98-cv-666). These federal claims are made pursuant to a motion to reopen his federal habeas corpus proceedings in light of recent developments announced by Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S.Ct. 13091 182 LEd.2d 272 (March 20, 2012) and its progeny. (See, e.g. Exhibit 1 which is defendant's initial pleading raising said issues.) In the alternative, defendant requests additional time in which to consult with and determine Trick's current competency to be executed. Current federal habeas proceedings: On July 3, 2012, Trick moved to reopen his federal habeas corpus proceedings based on developments brought about by the Supreme Court's decision in Martinez as well as subsequent cases such as Trevino v.
    [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]
  • IN the SUPREME COURT of TENNESSEE at NASHVILLE ABU-ALI ABDUR'rahman, Et Al, ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) No. M2018-01385-SC-RD
    Electronically RECEIVED on September 0G, 201A Electronically FILED on September 0G, 2018 Appellate Court Clerk Appellate Court Clerk IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE ABU-ALI ABDUR’RAHMAN, et al, ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) No. M2018-01385-SC-RDO-CV ) v. ) Davidson County Chancery Court ) Case No. 18-183-III TONY PARKER, et al, ) ) Defendants-Appellees ) ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGEMNT OF THE CHANCERY COURT BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS KELLEY J. HENRY, BPR# 21113 Supervisory Asst. Federal Public Defender KATHLEEN MORRIS AMY D. HARWELL, BPR#18691 42 Rutledge Street Asst. Chief, Capital Habeas Unit Nashville, TN 37210 JEROME C DELPINO, BPR# 025911 Phone: (615) 242-3200 Asst. Federal Public Defender Fax: (615)-242-3206 RICHARD TENNENT,BPR# 16931 Attorney for Plaintiff Hall Asst. Federal Public Defender KATHERINE DIX, BPR#022778 BRADLEY MACLEAN Asst. Federal Public Defender ATTORNEY AT LAW Office of the Federal Public Defender 1702 Villa Place for the Middle District of Tennessee Nashville, TN 3212 810 Broadway, Suite 200 Phone: (615) 943-8716 Nashville, TN 37203 Attorney for Abdur’Rahm Phone: (615) 736-5047 Fax: (615) 736-5265 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Abdur’Rahman, Bane, Black, Bland, Burns, Carruthers, Chalmers, Dellinger, Duncan, Henderson, Hines, Hodges, Hugueley, Jahi, Ivy, Johnson, Jordan, Keen, Middlebrooks, Miller, Morris, Payne, Powers, Rogers, Sample, Smith, Wright, Zagorski TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 JURISDICTION
    [Show full text]
  • Carrier Date Sent STATE of TENNESSEE * Appellate -R0238 Respondent-Appellee * * Trial Court No
    TENNESSEE COURT OF CRIMINAL PPEALS Carrier Date Sent STATE OF TENNESSEE * Appellate -r0238 Respondent-Appellee * * Trial Court No. 24527 vs. DEATH PENALTY BILLY RAY IRICK Execution Date: December 7, 2010 Petitioner-Appellant APPEAL OF KNOX COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT'S DENIAL OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER-APPELLANT en SPEARS, MOORE, REBMAN & WILLIAMS C. Eugene Shiles, Jr. (BPR 011678) 801 Broad Street, Sixth Floor P. O. Box 1749 Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401-1749 (423) 756-7000 Howell G. Clements, BPR# 001574 1010 Market Street, Suite 404 Chattanooga, TN 37402 (423) 757-5003 Counsel for Petitioner Irick TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii STATEMENT OF ISSUES iv STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS AND COURT PROCEEDINGS 2 ARGUMENT 39 CONCLUSION (Relief Sought) 56 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 57 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed. 2d 215 (1963) 22 Buford v. State. 845 SW2d204 (Tenn. 1992) 51 Cracker Barrel Old County Store. Inc. v. Epperson. 284 SW3d303,315 (Tenn. 2009) 44 Crawford v. State. 151 S.W.3d 179, 183 (Tenn.Crim.App. 2004) 50 Harris v. State. 301 SW3d 141 (Tenn. 2010) 47 House v. State. 911 S.W.2d 705. 711 (Tenn. 1995) 52 Howell v. State. 151 SW3d 450,462 (Tenn.2004) 51 Irick v. Bell. 565 F.3d 315 (6th Cir. 2009) 2 Irick v. Bell. 2010 WL 596620 2 Irick v. State. 973 SW2d 643 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1998) 23 Irick v. Tennessee. 525U.S.
    [Show full text]