DOCSLIB.ORG

IN the SUPREME COURT of OHIO STATE of OHIO, Vs. Plaintiff

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
IN the SUPREME COURT of OHIO STATE of OHIO, Vs. Plaintiff IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO f^,%j^ 'r^i STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO.: 12-0852 Plaintiff-Appellee, On Appeal from the Court of Appeals of vs. Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, Cuyahoga County ROMELL BROOM, Court of Appeals Case No. 96747 Defendant-Appellant. MERIT BRIEF OF APPELLANT ROMELL BROOM (This is a Post-conviction Death Penalty Case - No Execution Date is Set) S. Adele Shank (0022148) (Counsel of Record) LAW OFFICE OF S. ADELE SHANK 3380 Tremont Road, 2 nd Floor Columbus, Ohio 43221-2112 (614) 326-1217 sharM aw^^att.net Timothy F. Sweeney (0040027) LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY FARRELL SWEENEY The 820 Building, Suite 430 820 West Superior Ave. Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1800 (216) 241-5003 tim@timsweeneylaw. com COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT ROMELL BROOM Timothy J. McGinty (0024626) Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Katherine Mullin (0084122) T. Allan Regas (0067336) ;•,:::: ; Assistant Prosecuting Attorney ,, ,., ....... _...... .''::'i 1200 Ontario Street, 8th Floor ^-,-: ; ,•,; , Cleveland, OH 44113 ^sG`:.S% ^. '' ii; %r, (216) 443-7800 ; ; . _.,, ..:. ...... ;,.-i..a ^,,. %;; s;;%%s ,,,,; ; •.,- ::%:,'; ^; ,.. M ;:: C0 O;%T O; 0 H '; COUNSEL FOR THE STATE OF OHIO ° TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS . ............................................................................................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iv STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................. 4 LEGAL ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................. 12 Proposition of Law No. 1 : ..................................................................................................... 12 THE LOWER COURTS ERRED WHEN THEY FOUND THAT THE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS CLAUSES OF THE UNITED STATES AND OHIO CONSTITUTIONS DO NOT BAR ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO EXECUTE BROOM..... 12 A. The Eighth Amendment prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishments" bars any further execution attempts upon Broom because the State did not follow its own execution protocol or take the reasonable steps that would have prevented the unnecessary pain and suffering inflicted on Broom in its first botched execution attempt and any further attempt would be unusual, would build on the cruelty Broom has already suffered, and would be cruel in and of itself . ...................................................................................................................... 12 B. Because the "cruel and unusual punishments" clause of the Ohio Constitution should be held to provide even greater protection to Broom than the U.S. Constitution, Broom is entitled to relief under the Ohio Constitution regardless of whether the ........................................... 29 Proposition of Law No. 2 :..................................................................................................... 34 THE LOWER COURTS ERRED WHEN (1) THE APPELLATE COURT, ADOPTED ANEW CASE-SPECIFIC AND FACT-BASED STANDARD FOR ADJUDICATING BROOM'S UNIQUE AND RARE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS, AND THEN REFUSED TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE TRIAL COURT AND (2) WHEN THE TRIAL COURT DENIED HIM DISCOVERY AND A HEARING . ...................................................................................... 34 A. The Court of Appeals required that Broom plead and prove the deliberate indifference of the state actors who attempted to carry out his execution when no such standard existed at the time of filing . ................................................................ ................................................................. 35 B. The deliberate indifference standard is not appropriate for Broom's claims . .................. 35 -1 - C. The dissenting Court of Appeals judge supports remand ................................................. 37 D. The Court of Appeals erred when it found that Broom had not alleged "deliberate indifference............................................................................................................................ 38 E. The appellate court erred when it found that Broom had not previously attempted to raise facial challenges to the Protocol . .......................................................................................... 39 F. The Trial Court also denied Broom an adequate corrective process . ............................... 40 Proposition of Law No. 3 : ..................................................................................................... 42 THE LOWER COURTS ERRED WHEN THEY FOUND THAT A SECOND ATTEMPT TO EXECUTE BROOM WOULD NOT VIOLATE THE PROHIBITIONS AGAINST BEING PLACED TWICE IN JEOPARDY FOR THE SAME OFFENSE IN THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION . ........................................... 42 A. Broom is Entitled to Relief Under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.42 B. Broom is Entitled to Relief Under the Double Jeopardy Clause of Ohio's Constitution Regardless of What the U.S. Constitution May Require . ..................................................... 49 CONCLUSION ..... ................................................................................................:....................... 50 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................... 50 APPENDIX Notice of Appeal.:.... ............ ...... ....... ...... .... ......... ...... .. ...... ..................APPX 001 Court of Appeals Opinion. .... .APPX 004 Trial Court Opinion ...... ............... ............ ... ...... ...... ... ............... ...............APPX 037 Protoco101-COM-11 dated 10/11/06 ...................... .. ...........................APPX 043 Protoco101-COM-11 dated 5/14/09 ..............................................................APPX 053 Protoco101-COM-11 dated 10/10/13 ............................................................APPX 064 Oh. Const. Art. I, § 9(2014) .......................................................................APPX 083 Oh. Const. Art. I, § 10 (2014)... .. ....... ..............................................APPX 084 -ii- U.S. Const. Amend. 8 ...... ............ ... ... ... ... ... ......... ...... ......... ... ... .. ..............APPX 085 U.S. Const. Amend. 5 . .................................................... .... .. .. ..............APPX 086 U.S. Const. Amend. 14, § 1 .........................................................................APPX 087 O.R.C. Ann. 2949.22 . .APPX 088 O.R.C. Ann. 2949.24 . .... ..APPX 089 O. R. C . Ann. 2721.03 . APPX 090 -iii- TABI:.,I+, OF AUTHORITIES Cases Arnold v. C,leveland---------^s 67 Ohio St. 3d 35 (1993) ...................................................................... 29, 31 Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008) ........................................................................................... 26,37 13enton v. Mg^ ^land, 395 U.S. 784 (1969) .............................................................................. 26, 48 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) .......................................................................................... 1 Broom v. Bobby, 179 L. Ed. 2d 1193 (2011) . ................................................................................ 2 Broom v. Mitchell, 441 F.3d 392 (2006) ........................................................................................ 1 Broom v. Strickland. 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88811 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 27, 2010) .................... 2, 27 Buckeye ualilyCare Centers, Inc. V. Fletcher, 48 Ohio App. 3d 150 ( 1988) ............................. 41 Burger Brc^^o, v, jiqLior Control Comm., 34 Ohio St. 2d 93 (1973) .................................. 41 Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1(1978) .................................................................................... 47 Case v. Nebraska, 381 U.S. 336 (1965) ........................................................................................ 34 Cooey (Biros) v. Strickland, 610 F. Supp. 2d 853 (S.D. Ohio 2009) ........................................... 49 Cooey v. Strickland, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122025 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 7, 2009) ............................ 5 Cooey v. Strickland, 589 F.3d 210 (6th Cir. 2009) ......................................................................... 5 Evitts v. Lucev, 469 U.S. 387 (1985) ............................................................................................ 38 Fariner v. Brennan., 511 U.S. 825 (1994) ...................................................................................... 26 Harris v. United States, 422 F.3d 322 (6th Cir. 2005) .................................................................. 20 ane, 89 Ohio St. 3d 62 (2000) ............................................................................... 29 In re Broom, 127 Ohio St. 3d 1450 (2010) ..................................................................................... 2 In re C.h., 131 Ohio St. 3d 513 (2012) ......................................................................................... 29 -iv- Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978) ........................................................................................... 38 Love v. City-of PortS'.linton, 37 Ohio
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Clemency and Execution
    CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: RACE, POVERTY & DISADVANTAGE Yale University Professor Stephen B. Bright Class Thirteen - Part Two: Clemency and Execution CLEMENCY The power to grant pardons, commutations and reprieves is a broad, unrestricted power of the Humanity and good policy conspire to executive, normally not subject to judicial review. dictate that the benign prerogative of As stated by the Florida Supreme Court: pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed. The criminal An executive may grant a pardon for good code of every country partakes so much reasons or bad, or for any reason at all, and of necessary severity that without an easy his act is final and irrevocable. Even for the access to exceptions in favor of grossest abuse of this discretionary power the unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a law affords no remedy; the courts have no countenance too sanguinary and cruel. concern with the reasons which actuated the executive. The constitution clothes him with - Alexander Hamilton, THE FEDERALIST NO. 74 the power to grant pardons, and this power is beyond the control, or even the legitimate I have always found that mercy bears criticism, of the judiciary.1 richer fruits than strict justice. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - Abraham Lincoln described the power as follows: A people confident in its laws and institutions should not be ashamed of The very nature of clemency is that it is mercy. grounded solely in the will of the dispenser of clemency. He need give no reasons for - Justice Anthony Kennedy granting it, or for denying it .
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix to Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
    CASE NO. ___________________________________________________________________ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER 2020 TERM __________________________________________________________________ ROMELL BROOM, Petitioner, vs. TIM SHOOP, Warden, Respondent. __________________________________________________________________ On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari To the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit __________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX TO PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI (CAPITAL CASE: EXECUTION DATE IS SCHEDULED MARCH 16, 2022) S. Adele Shank, Esq. (OH 0022148) Counsel of Record* LAW OFFICE OF S. ADELE SHANK 3380 Tremont Road, Suite 270 Columbus, Ohio 43221-2112 (614) 326-1217 [email protected] Timothy F. Sweeney, Esq. (OH 0040027) LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY FARRELL SWEENEY The 820 Building, Suite 430 820 West Superior Ave. Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1800 (216) 241-5003 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner Romell Broom INDEX TO APPENDIX Appendix A: Broom v. Shoop, 6th Cir. Opinion, June 23, 2020 .................................. APPX 0001 Appendix B: Broom v. Shoop, 6th Cir. Judgment, June 23, 2020 ................................ APPX 0020 Appendix C: Broom v. Jenkins, N.D. Ohio, Memo. of Op. & Order, March 21, 2019 ........................................................................................................ APPX 0021 Appendix D: Broom v. Jenkins, N.D. Ohio, Judgment, March 21, 2019 ..................... APPX 0092 Appendix E: State v. Broom, Ohio Supreme Ct., Opinion, March 16, 2016 ............... APPX 0093 Appendix F: Broom v. Ohio, U.S. Supreme Ct., Cert. Denied, Dec. 12, 2016 ............ APPX 0127 Appendix G: Broom v. Ohio, U.S. Supreme Ct., Rehearing Den’d, Feb. 21, 2017 ..... APPX 0128 Appendix H: 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 ........................................................................... APPX 0129 Case: 19-3356 Document: 32-2 Filed: 06/23/2020 Page: 1 (3 of 22) RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P.
    [Show full text]
  • The Death Lottery: How Race and Geography Determine Who Goes to Ohio’S Death Row
    The Death Lottery: How Race and Geography Determine Who Goes to Ohio’s Death Row OHIOANS TO STOP EXECUTIONS 1 Introduction In 1998, the General Assembly enacted section 109.97 of the Ohio Revised Code to “require the Attorney General to annually prepare and file with specified individuals a capital case status report.”1 The Annual Capital Crimes Report is a valuable source of information. It contains vast amounts of quantitative data and pertinent sections of the Ohio Revised Code that provide the reader with information about the history, use, and legal provisions related to Ohio’s death penalty; however, the Atorrney General’s report lacks a fuller, qualitative look at the people and cases upon which the report is built. Accordingly, Ohioans to Stop Executions (OTSE) offers this report to provide context and detail to complement the numbers and statutes provided in the Annual Capital Crimes Report. Perspectives presented here are those of Ohioans to Stop Executions unless otherwise explicitly stated. All research done in this report has been performed and compiled by OTSE. This report was developed using information available from the following sources: Office of the Attorney General, the Ohio Supreme Court, the Ohio Supreme Court Joint Task Force to Review the Administration of the Death Penalty, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, the Office of the Ohio Public Defender, the Office of the Federal Public Defender, Southern Division, and the Office of the Federal Public Defender, Northern Division. Executive Summary The title of this new report from Ohioans to Stop Executions, “The Death Lottery: How Race and Geography Determine Who Goes to Death Row,” says it all.
    [Show full text]
  • Supf?E{UIE COURT Ilrohi® NO
    NO. 87-1674 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee ROMELLBROOM Defendant-Appellant REQUEST TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF UNREPORTED JUDICIAL OPINIONS WILLIAM D. MASON Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Matthew E. Meyer (#0075253) Assistant Prosecuting Attomey Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee 1200 Ontario Street Courts Tower - Justice Center Cleveland, Ohio 44113 (216) 443-7800 (216) 443-7602 fax [email protected] email Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee S. ADELE SHANK 3380 Tremont Rd., 2°a Floor Columbus, Ohio 43201 I TIMOTHY F. SWEENEY 820 W. Superior Ave. AIJO P '1 rl101l Cleveland, Ohio 44113 CLFRK oF COURT Counsel for Defendant-Appellant SUPf?E{UIE COURT ilrOHI® NO. 87-1674 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee ROMELL BROOM Defendant-Appellant REQUEST TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF UNREPORTED JUDICIAL OPINIONS Now comes Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney William D. Mason on behalf of the State of Ohio, by and through his undersigned assistant, and respectfully submits the State's Request to Take Judicial Notice of Unreported Judicial Opinions. The State requests that this Honorable Court take notice of these unreported opinions pursuant to State e,r rel. Everhart v. McIntosh, 115 Ohio St.3d 195, 874 N.E.2d 516, 2007-Ohio-4798, at ¶ 10. The opinions, which are attached hereto, are: 1. Broom v. Mitchell (N.D. Ohio, August 28, 2002), Case No. 1:99 cv 0030, unreported. 2. State v. Larkins (Ohio Ct. Com. P1, Dec. 13, 2002), Cuy. Ct. Comm. P1. CR 166827, unreported. 3. Apanovitch v. Houk (N.D. Ohio, August 14, 2009), Case No.
    [Show full text]
  • No. 16-5580 in the Supreme Court of the United States ______
    No. 16-5580 In the Supreme Court of the United States ________________________________ ROMELL BROOM, Petitioner, v. STATE OF OHIO, Respondent. __________________________________ ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO ___________________________________ BRIEF IN OPPOSITION ___________________________________ TIMOTHY J. McGINTY Cuyahoga County Prosecutor CHRISTOPHER D. SCHROEDER Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Counsel of Record The Justice Center, 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 [email protected] (216) 443-7733 Counsel for Respondent State of Ohio QUESTIONS PRESENTED Did Ohio violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment in this case, and if so, is the appropriate remedy to bar Ohio from executing Romell Broom? Would the execution of Romell Broom be cruel and unusual punishment? Would the execution of Romell Broom violate his Double Jeopardy protection against multiple punishments for the same offense? i TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED ........................................................................................... i TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................... iii STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Death Sentences and Executions in 2009
    death sentences and executions 2009 amnesty international is a global movement of 2.8 million supporters, members and activists in more than 150 countries and territories who campaign to end grave abuses of 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 standards. We are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion and are funded mainly by our membership and public donations. amnesty international Publications First published in 2010 by amnesty international Publications international secretariat Peter Benenson house 1 easton street London Wc1x 0dW united Kingdom www.amnesty.org © amnesty international Publications 2010 index: act 50/001/2010 original language: english Printed by amnesty international, international secretariat, united Kingdom all rights reserved. this publication is copyright, but may be reproduced by any method without fee for advocacy, campaigning and teaching purposes, but not for resale. the copyright holders request that all such use be registered with them for impact assessment purposes. For copying in any other circumstances, or for re-use in other publications, or for translation or adaptation, prior written permission must be obtained from the publishers, and a fee may be payable. Cover phot o: Painting by delara darabi, who was executed in Rasht, iran, on 1 May 2009. after unfair judicial proceedings during which she consistently protested her innocence and despite a two-month stay of execution order, delara darabi was hanged for a murder which took place when she was aged 17. © delara darabi Back cover phot o: a flower-laying protest against the execution of delara darabi was held by amnesty international members in front of the embassy of iran in Warsaw, Poland, on 6 May 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Penalty Information Pack 
    Penal Reform International • Death Penalty Information Pack 1 Penal Reform International Death Penalty Information Pack www.penalreform.org April 2011 This information pack is produced in conjunction with Penal Reform International’s project “Progressive Abolition of the Death Penalty and Alternatives that Respect International Human Rights Standards.” This information pack has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of Penal Reform International and can in no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union. Front cover picture by Robert Priseman: No Human Way to Kill (2010) Penal Reform International • Death Penalty Information Pack 3 Contents Acronyms 4 International trends toward abolition 5 Overview of countries covered by PRI’s death penalty programme 9 International standards and the death penalty 10 Moratorium 14 The death penalty only for the “most serious crimes” 17 Right to a fair trial and administrative safeguards in death penalty cases 20 Mandatory death penalty 24 Conditions of imprisonment for those under sentence of death 26 Clemency and pardon procedures 28 Execution 30 Transparency 33 Does the death penalty deter crime? 35 Public opinion and the death penalty 37 Victims’ rights 39 12 steps to abolition of the death penalty in law for all crimes 42 Penal Reform International • Death Penalty Information Pack 4 Acronyms ACHPR African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights ADPAN Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network
    [Show full text]
  • Finding Aid Was Produced Using Archivesspace on September 28, 2021
    Bonowitz, Abraham J.; Papers This finding aid was produced using ArchivesSpace on September 28, 2021. M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections & Archives Bonowitz, Abraham J.; Papers Table of Contents Summary Information .................................................................................................................................... 3 Biographical History ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Scope and Contents ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Arrangement of the Collection ...................................................................................................................... 5 Administrative Information ............................................................................................................................ 5 Controlled Access Headings .......................................................................................................................... 6 Collection Inventory ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Communications .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Inmate Correspondence and Research .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Death Penalty Expenses 6 Hamilton County Dollars Spent on Capital Punishment 7 Real Justice Means Investing in Communities
    STANLEY ADAMS NAWAZ AHMED WILFORD BERRY, JR. DAVID ALLEN ANTHONY APANOVITCH JAY D. SCOTT ABDUL AWKAL TYRONE BALLEW JOHN WILLIAM BYRD, JR. RICHARD BAYS RICHARD BEA - SLEY ALTON COLEMAN ANTHONY BELTON ROBERT BETHEL MELVIN BONNELL ROBERT ANTHONY BUELL DAVID BRADEN GRADY BRINKLEY RICHARD EDWIN FOX GEORGE BRINKMAN ROMELL BROOM QUISI BRYAN DAVID M. BREWER CEDRIC CARTER SEAN CARTER ERNEST MARTIN AUGUST CASSA - NO STEVEN CEPEC LEWIS WILLIAMS, JR. DAVEL CHINN CURTIS CLINTON JOHN GLENN ROE TIM - OTHY COLEMAN DOUGLAS COLEY WILLIAM DEAN WICKLINE JAMES CONWAY III DERRICK COOK WIL - LIAM G. ZUERN, JR. WARREN WADDY JERONIQUE CUNNINGHAM ROLAND DAVISVON DAVIS STEPHEN ALLEN VRABEL ARCHIE DIXON JOEL DRAIN WILLIAM G. ZUERN, JR. JOHN DRUMMOND PHILLIP ELMORE GREGORY ESPARZA SCOTT ANDREW MINK STANLEY FITZPATRICK SHAWN FORD ADREMY DENNIS ANTONIO FRANKLIN TERRY FROMAN WILLIAM SMITH CLARENCE FRY JR. LARRY GAPEN HERMAN DALE ASHWORTH KRISTOFER GARRETT JOHN GILLARD WILLIAM JAMES “FLIP” WILLIAMS, JR. JAMES GOFF DAMANTAE GRAHAM JOHN R. HICKS SHAWN GRATE SCOTT GROUP DELANO HALE GLENN LEE BENNER II GERALD HAND JAMES HANNA JEROME HENDERSON JOSEPH LEWIS CLARK WARREN HENNESS DANNY HILL TIMOTHY HOFFNER ROCKY BARTON WILLIE WILKS JR. ANDRE “KOKO - MO” WILLIAMS DARRELL WAYNE FERGUSON GARY HUGHBANKS LANCE HUNDLEY JEFFREY LUND - GREN LAMONT HUNTER PERCY HUTTON JAMES J. FILIAGGI ANDRE JACKSON CLEVELAND JACKSON CHRISTOPHER NEWTON JEREMIAH JACKSON KAREEM JACKSON RICHARD COOEY NATHANIEL JACK - SON STANLEY JALOWIEC GREGORY BRYANT-BEY MARVIN JOHNSON ELWOOD JONES DANIEL E. WIL- SON ODRAYE JONES/MALIK AKBAR PHILLIP JONES JOHN JOSEPH FAUTENBERRY DONALD KETTERER JUAN KINLEY MARVALLOUS KEENE ANTHONY KIRKLAND THOMAS KNUFF JR. JASON GETSY KEITH LAMAR/BOMANI SHAKUR LAWRENCE LANDRUM KENNETH BIROS EDWARD LANG ARRON LAWSON VERNON LAMONT SMITH CARL LINDSEY CHARLES LORRAINE MARK AARON BROWN GREGORY LOTT JOSE LOZA LAWRENCE RAYMOND REYNOLDS RALPH LYNCH CLARENCE MACK MICHAEL MADISON DARRYL M.
    [Show full text]
  • The High Cost of the Death Penalty in Hamilton County and The
    STANLEY ADAMS NAWAZ AHMED WILFORD BERRY, JR. DAVID ALLEN ANTHONY APANOVITCH JAY D. SCOTT ABDUL AWKAL TYRONE BALLEW JOHN WILLIAM BYRD, JR. RICHARD BAYS RICHARD BEASLEY ALTON COLEMAN ANTHONY BELTON ROBERT BETHEL MELVIN BONNELL ROBERT ANTHONY BUELL DAVID BRADEN GRADY BRINKLEY RICHARD EDWIN FOX GEORGE BRINKMAN ROMELL BROOM QUISI BRYAN DAVID M. BREWER CEDRIC CARTER SEAN CARTER ERNEST MARTIN AUGUST CASSANO STEVEN CEPEC LEWIS WILLIAMS, JR. DAVEL CHINN CURTIS CLINTON JOHN GLENN ROE TIMOTHY COLEMAN DOUGLAS COLEY WILLIAM DEAN WICKLINE JAMES CONWAY III DERRICK COOK WILLIAM G. ZUERN, JR. WARREN WADDY JERONIQUE CUNNINGHAM ROLAND DAVISVON DAVIS STEPHEN ALLEN VRABEL ARCHIE DIXON JOEL DRAIN WILLIAM G. ZUERN, JR. JOHN DRUMMOND PHILLIP ELMORE GREGORY ESPARZA SCOTT ANDREW MINK STANLEY FITZPATRICK SHAWN FORD ADREMY DENNIS ANTONIO FRANKLIN TERRY FROMAN WILLIAM SMITH CLARENCE FRY JR. LARRY GAPEN HERMAN DALE ASHWORTH KRISTOFER GARRETT JOHN GILLARD WILLIAM JAMES “FLIP” WILLIAMS, JR. JAMES GOFF DAMANTAE GRAHAM JOHN R. HICKS SHAWN GRATE SCOTT GROUP DELANO HALE GLENN LEE BENNER II GERALD HAND JAMES HANNA JEROME HENDERSON JOSEPH LEWIS CLARK WARREN HENNESS DANNY HILL TIMOTHY HOFFNER ROCKY BARTON WILLIE WILKS JR. ANDRE “KOKOMO” WILLIAMS DARRELL WAYNE FERGUSON GARY HUGHBANKS LANCE HUNDLEY JEFFREY LUNDGREN LAMONT HUNTER PERCY HUTTON JAMES J. FILIAGGI ANDRE JACKSON CLEVELAND JACKSON CHRISTOPHER NEWTON JEREMIAH JACKSON KAREEM JACKSON RICHARD COOEY NATHANIEL JACKSON STANLEY JALOWIEC GREGORY BRYANT-BEY MARVIN JOHNSON ELWOOD JONES DANIEL E. WILSON ODRAYE JONES/MALIK AKBAR PHILLIP JONES JOHN JOSEPH FAUTENBERRY DONALD KETTERER JUAN KINLEY MARVALLOUS KEENE ANTHONY KIRKLAND THOMAS KNUFF JR. JASON GETSY KEITH LAMAR/ BOMANI SHAKUR LAWRENCE LANDRUM KENNETH BIROS EDWARD LANG ARRON LAWSON VERNON LAMONT SMITH CARL LINDSEY CHARLES LORRAINE MARK AARON BROWN GREGORY LOTT JOSE LOZA LAWRENCE RAYMOND REYNOLDS RALPH LYNCH CLARENCE MACK MICHAEL MADISON DARRYL M.
    [Show full text]
  • “Going Through All These Things Twice”: a Brief History of Botched Executions
    777 “Going Through All These Things Twice”: A Brief History of Botched Executions Stephen Eliot Smith* Introduction At the age of eight, I became a member of the Cub Scouts. In the months after my investiture, I read and re-read The Cub Book, the comprehensive handbook that contained merit badge requirements and helpful instructions on how to properly carry out a diverse range of necessary actions, such as starting a fire, singing a marching ditty, and carrying paper bags of groceries.1 Of particular interest and frustration was the section on knots. Eventually, I was able to master the basics – the “bowline”, the “clove hitch”, the “taut line”, and even the confusing and seemingly useless “sheepshank”. But there was one knot illustrated in the book that I never could get quite right: the “hangman’s noose”. Looking back, it seems remarkable to me that an eight-year-old boy would be given a book that provides the essential knowledge needed to perform a lynching, but I suppose the risks were minimal: it was a very difficult knot to get right.2 I suspect that over the centuries, more than one executioner has similarly struggled with construction of this knot. Scattered throughout historical records, there are dozens (if not hundreds) of accounts of so-called “botched executions”, in which the hangman’s noose frays, breaks, slips, unravels, or for one reason or another just does not accomplish its purpose: as Dorothy Parker succinctly lamented regarding the unreliability of death by hanging, “[n]ooses give”.3 But the incidence of botched executions has not been * Faculty of Law, University of Otago.
    [Show full text]
  • IN the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the WESTERN DISTRICT of OKLAHOMA (1.) the Oklahoma Observer, (2.) Arnold Hamilton, (3.)
    Case 5:14-cv-00905-HE Document 20 Filed 10/07/14 Page 1 of 125 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA (1.) The Oklahoma Observer, (2.) Arnold Hamilton, (3.) Guardian US, (4.) Katie Fretland, Plaintiffs, Civil Case No. 14-905-HE -v- DECLARATION OF (1.) Robert Patton in his capacity as MICHAEL L. RADELET Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections; (2.) Anita Trammell, in her capacity as Warden of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Defendants. I, Michael L. Radelet, declare as follows: 1. I am a Full Professor and former Chair in the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado. Over the past 30 years, I have studied the sociological impacts of capital punishment in America. I have served as an expert witness in 60 death penalty cases, including in Oklahoma.1 As part of my research, for the past thirty years I have been documenting media reports of miscarried executions. 2. In this declaration, I discuss media reports about “botched” executions in the years following the Supreme Court’s de facto moratorium on the death penalty announced in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972). The information in this declaration is based upon my personal knowledge and sources of the kind on which 1 See State v. Medlock, No. CRF-90-89 (D. Ct. Canadian County, appeared Mar. 13, 1991) (penalty phase). 1 Case 5:14-cv-00905-HE Document 20 Filed 10/07/14 Page 2 of 125 researchers in my field rely. If called to testify, I could and would competently testify thereto.
    [Show full text]