DOCSLIB.ORG

Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission The Report of the Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission The Report of the Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission The Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission is an initiative of The Constitution Project®, which sponsors independent, bipartisan committees to address a variety of important constitutional issues and to produce consensus reports and recommendations. The views and conclusions expressed in these reports, statements, and other material do not necessarily relect the views of members of its Board of Directors or its staf. For information about this report, or any other work of The Constitution Project, please visit our website at www. constitutionproject.org or e-mail us at [email protected]. Copyright © March 2017 by The Constitution Project ®. All rights reserved. No part 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 Constitution Project. Book design by Keane Design & Communications, Inc/keanedesign.com. Table of Contents Letter from the Co-Chairs .........................................................................................................................................i The Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission ..............................................................................iii Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................................. vii Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ix Chapters 1. Overview .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Forensics ........................................................................................................................................................................13 3. Innocence Protection.............................................................................................................................................41 4. Role of the Prosecution .......................................................................................................................................71 5. Role of the Defense ...............................................................................................................................................89 6. Jury Issues ................................................................................................................................................................105 7. Role of the Judiciary ........................................................................................................................................... 131 8. Death Eligibility .................................................................................................................................................... 141 9. Clemency ...................................................................................................................................................................161 10. Execution Process ..............................................................................................................................................175 Appendices Appendix I: Proportionality, Cost, and Accuracy of Capital Punishment in Oklahoma ...............199 Appendix IA: Race and Death Sentencing for Oklahoma Homicides, 1990-2012 ..........................211 Appendix IB: An Analysis of the Economic Costs of Capital Punishment in Oklahoma ..........223 Acknowledgments .....................................................................................................................................................................271 A Letter from the Co-Chairs For a period spanning over a year, the Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission, a group of eleven Oklahomans of diverse backgrounds, worked hard to study virtually all aspects of the death penalty, from initial arrest and interrogation through the execution stage, as implemented in the United States and, in particular, in Oklahoma. Commissioners gathered data, reviewed scholarly articles, commissioned studies, and conducted interviews. They met, discussed, debated, and reached consensus, and the following report and its recommendations are the result of the Commission’s work. Commission members included ive women and six men. They came from both urban and rural communities. They included Republicans and Democrats, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, individuals who have served in each of the three branches of government, law school professors and law school deans, victims’ advocates, and advocates for Native Americans. The Commission met ten times for intense, full-day meetings. Commission members heard from experts, both from around the country and throughout Oklahoma. A full list of all who made presentations, provided expert guidance, or otherwise assisted the Commission through logistical support appears in the Acknowledgements section following the report. We are especially grateful to the following individuals who met with the Commission to discuss, in detail, their work as it relates to Oklahoma’s death penalty: Shannon Butler, Charles Curtis, Michelle Feldman, Patti Palmer Ghezzi, Steve Kunzweiler, Robert Nigh, David Prater, Robert Ravitz, Craig Sutter, and Nancy Vollertson. All were helpful. All contributed to the report. We wish to thank them for the signiicant time and efort they spent to help the Commission better understand the issues, their work, their areas of expertise, and their perspectives. Commission meetings, however, constituted only a fraction of the work Commissioners undertook. Some met with various public oicials. Others interviewed experts. All read and studied volumes of information. Commissioners reviewed, edited, and re-edited the text of the report. Commissioners arrived at every meeting well-prepared to discuss, to advocate, to compromise, and, ultimately, to reach consensus. State and local agencies throughout Oklahoma provided helpful data and other assistance. These include the Oice of Governor Mary Fallin, the Oklahoma Supreme Court, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the Oklahoma Attorney General, the Oice of the Speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives, the Oice of the President Pro Tempore of the Oklahoma State Senate, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System, the Oklahoma District Attorneys Council, several district attorneys, district court clerks, sherifs and police departments, and many others. Without their help, the Commission’s undertaking would have been impossible. i The Report of the Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission A number of individuals and entities assisted the Commission with important contextual research. Their work, which analyzes rates of error, costs, and disproportionate application of the death penalty, appears in the appendix. Many of them provided this assistance on a pro bono basis. The Commission is particularly thankful to the following individuals and entities: the law irms Norton Rose Fulbright and King & Spalding, Dr. Peter Collins, Dr. Matthew Hickman, and Professor Robert Boruchowitz, Melissa Vincent and the irm 9Tribe, and Professors Glenn Pierce, Michael Radelet, and Susan Sharp. Several institutions made their facilities available for Commission meetings. These include Oklahoma City University School of Law, the University of Oklahoma College of Law, Langston University, the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, and the law irms Spencer Fane LLP and Crowe & Dunlevy. The Constitution Project (TCP) was critical to the Commission’s work. Without TCP, the Commission could not have fulilled its mission. TCP is a Washington, D.C., bipartisan, nonproit organization which fosters consensus- based solutions to the most diicult constitutional challenges of our time. TCP supplied all staf and researchers to the Commission throughout its work. Virginia “Ginny” Sloan, the President and Founder of TCP, made certain the Commission had all the help and resources it needed. Madhuri “Madhu” Grewal, Senior Counsel for The Constitution Project, tirelessly worked for the Commission from start to inish. TCP stafers Alexa O’Brian, Matilde Carbia and Ryan Kent also worked hard to make the Commission’s work a success. They spent untold hours coordinating Commission eforts. The Commission is especially grateful for the work and assistance of TCP and its talented and hard-working staf. We also thank Brenda Jones Barwick and her team at Jones PR for communications support. Commission members have learned much. We hope this knowledge, as imparted in the report, will result in implementation of all or at least most of the Commission’s recommendations. Commissioners trust their work will encourage, enhance, and expand the ongoing discussion among Oklahomans about the death penalty. Hon. Brad Henry Andy Lester Hon. Reta Strubhar ii The Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission Co-Chairs Governor Brad Henry serves Of Counsel to the national business law irm of Spencer Fane LLP and is a founding member of Henry-Adams Companies, LLC, a general and business development consulting irm. Governor Henry served as Oklahoma’s 26th governor. He was elected governor in 2002 and served two terms through January
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cuba and the World.Book
    CUBA FUTURES: CUBA AND THE WORLD Edited by M. Font Bildner Center for Western Hemisphere Studies Presented at the international symposium “Cuba Futures: Past and Present,” organized by the The Cuba Project Bildner Center for Western Hemisphere Studies The Graduate Center/CUNY, March 31–April 2, 2011 CUBA FUTURES: CUBA AND THE WORLD Bildner Center for Western Hemisphere Studies www.cubasymposium.org www.bildner.org Table of Contents Preface v Cuba: Definiendo estrategias de política exterior en un mundo cambiante (2001- 2011) Carlos Alzugaray Treto 1 Opening the Door to Cuba by Reinventing Guantánamo: Creating a Cuba-US Bio- fuel Production Capability in Guantánamo J.R. Paron and Maria Aristigueta 47 Habana-Miami: puentes sobre aguas turbulentas Alfredo Prieto 93 From Dreaming in Havana to Gambling in Las Vegas: The Evolution of Cuban Diasporic Culture Eliana Rivero 123 Remembering the Cuban Revolution: North Americans in Cuba in the 1960s David Strug 161 Cuba's Export of Revolution: Guerilla Uprisings and Their Detractors Jonathan C. Brown 177 Preface The dynamics of contemporary Cuba—the politics, culture, economy, and the people—were the focus of the three-day international symposium, Cuba Futures: Past and Present (organized by the Bildner Center at The Graduate Center, CUNY). As one of the largest and most dynamic conferences on Cuba to date, the Cuba Futures symposium drew the attention of specialists from all parts of the world. Nearly 600 individuals attended the 57 panels and plenary sessions over the course of three days. Over 240 panelists from the US, Cuba, Britain, Spain, Germany, France, Canada, and other countries combined perspectives from various fields including social sciences, economics, arts and humanities.
    [Show full text]
  • AS/Jur (2019) 50 11 December 2019 Ajdoc50 2019
    Declassified AS/Jur (2019) 50 11 December 2019 ajdoc50 2019 Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights Abolition of the death penalty in Council of Europe member and observer states,1 Belarus and countries whose parliaments have co-operation status2 – situation report Revised information note General rapporteur: Mr Titus CORLĂŢEAN, Romania, Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group 1. Introduction 1. Having been appointed general rapporteur on the abolition of the death penalty at the Committee meeting of 13 December 2018, I have had the honour to continue the outstanding work done by Mr Yves Cruchten (Luxemburg, SOC), Ms Meritxell Mateu Pi (Andorra, ALDE), Ms Marietta Karamanli (France, SOC), Ms Marina Schuster (Germany, ALDE), and, before her, Ms Renate Wohlwend (Liechtenstein, EPP/CD).3 2. This document updates the previous information note with regard to the development of the situation since October 2018, which was considered at the Committee meeting in Strasbourg on 10 October 2018. 3. This note will first of all provide a brief overview of the international and European legal framework, and then highlight the current situation in states that have abolished the death penalty only for ordinary crimes, those that provide for the death penalty in their legislation but do not implement it and those that actually do apply it. It refers solely to Council of Europe member states (the Russian Federation), observer states (United States, Japan and Israel), states whose parliaments hold “partner for democracy” status, Kazakhstan4 and Belarus, a country which would like to have closer links with the Council of Europe. Since March 2012, the Parliamentary Assembly’s general rapporteurs have issued public statements relating to executions and death sentences in these states or have proposed that the Committee adopt statements condemning capital punishment as inhuman and degrading.
    [Show full text]
  • VADP 2015 Annual Report Accomplishments in 2015
    2015 Annual Report Working to End the Death Penalty through Education, Organizing and Advocacy for 24 years VADP Executive Directors, Past and Present From left: Beth Panilaitis (2008 -2010), Steve Northup (2011 -2014), Jack Payden -Travers (2002 -2007), and Michael Stone (2015). Virginians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty P.O. Box 12222 Richmond, VA 23241 (434) 960 -7779 [email protected] www.vadp.org Message from the VADP Board President Dear VADP Supporter, resources to band together the various groups and Last year was a time of strong forward movement individuals who oppose the death penalty, for VADP. In January, we hired Michael Stone, whatever their reasons, into a cohesive force. our first full time executive director in four years, I would like to thank those of you who made a and that led to the implementation of bold new monetary donation to VADP in 2015. But our strategies and expanded programs. work is not done. So I ask you to increase your In 2015 we learned what can be accomplished in support in 2016 and to help us find others to join today’s politics when groups with different overall this important movement. And, if you are not yet purposes decide to work together on a specific a supporter of VADP, now is the time to join our shared objective — such as vital work to end the death penalty in Virginia, death penalty abolition. That, once and for all. happily, is starting to occur. Sincerely, As an example, nationally and Kent Willis in Virginia activists from every Board President point on the political spectrum are joining an extraordinary new movement to re -examine The Death Penalty in Virginia how we waste tax dollars on our expensive and ineffective criminal justice system, including ♦ Virginia has executed 111 men and women capital punishment.
    [Show full text]
  • Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission
    The Report of the The Report Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission Review Penalty Oklahoma Death The Report of the Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission OKDeathPenaltyReview.org The Report of the Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission The Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission is an initiative of The Constitution Project®, which sponsors independent, bipartisan committees to address a variety of important constitutional issues and to produce consensus reports and recommendations. The views and conclusions expressed in these reports, statements, and other material do not necessarily reflect the views of members of its Board of Directors or its staff. For information about this report, or any other work of The Constitution Project, please visit our website at www. constitutionproject.org or e-mail us at [email protected]. Copyright © March 2017 by The Constitution Project ®. All rights reserved. No part 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 Constitution Project. Book design by Keane Design & Communications, Inc/keanedesign.com. Table of Contents Letter from the Co-Chairs .........................................................................................................................................i The Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission ..............................................................................iii Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Year End Report
    THE DEATH PENALTY IN 2015: YEAR END REPORT DEATH PENALTY USE IN 2015 DECLINES SHARPLY FEWEST EXECUTIONS, FEWEST DEATH SENTENCES, AND FEWEST STATES EMPLOYING THE DEATH PENALTY IN DECADES KEY FINDINGS Executions By Year • There were 28 100 executions in 6 Peak: 98 in 1999 states, the fewest 80 since 1991. ⬇70 60 • There were 49 death sentences in 40 2015, 33% below the modern death 20 28 in 2015 penalty low set last year. 0 • New death 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 sentences in the past decade are lower than in the Death Sentences By Year decade preceding 350 Peak: 315 in 1996 the Supreme 300 Court’s invalidation of capital 250 ⬇266 punishment in 200 1972. 150 • Six more former 100 death row inmates 49 in 2015 (projected) were exonerated of 50 all charges. 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2015 THE DEATH PENALTY IN 2015: YEAR END REPORT U.S. DEATH PENALTY DECLINE ACCELERATES IN 2015 By all measures, use of and support for the death penalty Executions by continued its steady decline in the United States in 2015. The 2015 2014 State number of new death sentences imposed in the U.S. fell sharply from already historic lows, executions dropped to Texas 13 10 their lowest levels in 24 years, and public opinion polls revealed that a majority of Americans preferred life without Missouri 6 10 parole to the death penalty. Opposition to capital punishment polled higher than any time since 1972.
    [Show full text]
  • AMR 51/003/2002 USA: €Arbitrary, Discriminatory, and Cruel: An
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Arbitrary, discriminatory, and cruel: an aide- mémoire to 25 years of judicial killing “For the rest of your life, you will have to move around in a world that wanted this death to happen. You will have to walk past people every day who were heartened by the killing of somebody in your family.” Mikal Gilmore, brother of Gary Gilmore1 A quarter of a century has passed since a Utah firing squad shot Gary Gilmore and opened the “modern” era of judicial killing in the United States of America. Since that day – 17 January 1977 – more than 750 men and women have been shot, gassed, electrocuted, hanged or poisoned to death in the execution chambers of 32 US states and of the federal government. More than 600 have been killed since 1990. Each has been the target of a ritualistic, politically expedient punishment which offers no constructive contribution to society’s efforts to combat violent crime. The US Supreme Court halted executions in 1972 because of the arbitrary way in which death sentences were being handed out. Justice Potter Stewart famously compared this arbitrariness to the freakishness of being struck by lightning. Four years later, the Court ruled that newly-enacted capital laws would cure the system of bias, and allowed executions to resume. Today, rarely a week goes by without at least one prisoner somewhere in the country being strapped down and killed by government executioners. In the past five years, an average of 78 people a year have met this fate. Perhaps Justice Stewart, if he were still alive, would note that this is similar to the number of people annually killed by lightning in the USA.2 So, is the system successfully selecting the “worst of the worst” crimes and offenders for the death penalty, as its proponents would claim, or has it once again become a lethal lottery? The evidence suggests that the latter is closer to the truth.
    [Show full text]
  • Amicus Curiae the Chickasaw Nation Counsel for Amicus Curiae the Choctaw Nation of FRANK S
    No. 18-9526 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— JIMCY MCGIRT, Petitioner, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Respondent. ———— On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma ———— BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE TOM COLE, BRAD HENRY, GLENN COFFEE, MIKE TURPEN, NEAL MCCALEB, DANNY HILLIARD, MICHAEL STEELE, DANIEL BOREN, T.W. SHANNON, LISA JOHNSON BILLY, THE CHICKASAW NATION, AND THE CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER ———— MICHAEL BURRAGE ROBERT H. HENRY WHITTEN BURRAGE Counsel of Record 512 N. Broadway Avenue ROBERT H. HENRY LAW FIRM Suite 300 512 N. Broadway Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Suite 230 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 (405) 516-7824 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae [Additional Counsel Listed On Inside Cover] February 11, 2020 WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 STEPHEN H. GREETHAM BRAD MALLETT Senior Counsel Associate General Counsel CHICKASAW NATION CHOCTAW NATION OF 2929 Lonnie Abbott Blvd. OKLAHOMA Ada, OK 74820 P.O. Box 1210 Durant, OK 74702 Counsel for Amicus Curiae the Chickasaw Nation Counsel for Amicus Curiae the Choctaw Nation of FRANK S. HOLLEMAN, IV Oklahoma DOUGLAS B. ENDRESON SONOSKY, CHAMBERS, SACHSE, ENDRESON & PERRY, LLP 1425 K St., NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 682-0240 Counsel for Amici Curiae the Chickasaw Nation and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................ ii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ........................ 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................. 5 ARGUMENT ........................................................ 5 I. OKLAHOMA’S AND THE NATIONS’ NEGOTIATED APPROACH TO SET- TLING JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES ON THEIR RESERVATIONS BENEFITS ALL OKLAHOMANS ..............................
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Introduction to Criminal Investigation: Processes, Practices and Thinking Introduction to Criminal Investigation: Processes, Practices and Thinking
    Introduction to Criminal Investigation: Processes, Practices and Thinking Introduction to Criminal Investigation: Processes, Practices and Thinking ROD GEHL AND DARRYL PLECAS JUSTICE INSTITUTE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA NEW WESTMINSTER, BC Introduction to Criminal Investigation: Processes, Practices and Thinking by Rod Gehl is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted. Introduction to Criminal Investigation: Processes, Practices and Thinking by Rod Gehl and Darryl Plecas is, unless otherwise noted, released under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY-NC) license. This means you are free to copy, retain (keep), reuse, redistribute, remix, and revise (adapt or modify) this textbook but not for commercial purposes. Under this license, anyone who revises this textbook (in whole or in part), remixes portions of this textbook with other material, or redistributes a portion of this textbook, may do so without gaining the author’s permission providing they properly attribute the textbook or portions of the textbook to the author as follows: Introduction to Criminal Investigation: Processes, Practices and Thinking by Rod Gehl and Darryl Plecas is used under a CC BY-NC 4.0 International license. Additionally, if you redistribute this textbook (in whole or in part) you must retain the below statement, Download this book for free at https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/criminalinvestigation/ as follows: 1. digital format: on every electronic page 2. print format: on at least one page near the front of the book To cite this textbook using APA, for example, follow this format: Gehl, Rod & Plecas, Darryl. (2016). Introduction to Criminal Investigation: Processes, Practices and Thinking.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Forensics in Support of Investigations
    IAEA Nuclear Security Series No. 2-G (Rev.1) Implementing Guide Nuclear Forensics in Support of Investigations This publication is a revision of IAEA Nuclear Security Series No. 2, Nuclear Forensics Support, which was published in 2006 and has been widely adopted by States to develop a nuclear forensic capability. This publication provides up to date information on investigating nuclear security events, the legal basis for nuclear forensics, nuclear forensics within a national response plan, the initiation of an examination, the availability of a nuclear forensics laboratory using existing national capabilities, and forensic analysis of nuclear and other radioactive material and of evidence contaminated by radionuclides. INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY VIENNA ISBN 978–92–0–102115–1 ISSN 1816–9317 @ RELATED PUBLICATIONS IAEA NUCLEAR SECURITY SERIES RADIOLOGICAL CRIME SCENE MANAGEMENT Nuclear security issues relating to the prevention and detection of, and response IAEA Nuclear Security Series No. 22-G to, criminal or intentional unauthorized acts involving, or directed at, nuclear material, STI/PUB/1672 (93 pp.; 2014) other radioactive material, associated facilities or associated activities are addressed in the ISBN 978–92–0–108714–0 Price: €48.00 IAEA Nuclear Security Series. These publications are consistent with, and complement, international nuclear security instruments, such as the Convention on the Physical Protection NUCLEAR SECURITY RECOMMENDATIONS of Nuclear Material and its Amendment, the International Convention for the Suppression of ON NUCLEAR AND OTHER RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, United Nations Security Council resolutions 1373 and 1540, and the Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources. OUT OF REGULATORY CONTROL IAEA Nuclear Security Series No.
    [Show full text]
  • The Needle Lives to See Another Day! Three-Drug Protocol Ruled Constitutional in Glossip V. Gross
    Valparaiso University Law Review Volume 51 Number 3 Spring 2017 pp.881-890 Spring 2017 The Needle Lives to See Another Day! Three-Drug Protocol Ruled Constitutional in Glossip v. Gross Steven Paku Valparaiso University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Steven Paku, The Needle Lives to See Another Day! Three-Drug Protocol Ruled Constitutional in Glossip v. Gross, 51 Val. U. L. Rev. 881 (2017). Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol51/iss3/10 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Valparaiso University Law School at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Valparaiso University Law Review by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Paku: The Needle Lives to See Another Day! Three-Drug Protocol Ruled Co Comment THE NEEDLE LIVES TO SEE ANOTHER DAY! THREE-DRUG PROTOCOL RULED CONSTITUTIONAL IN GLOSSIP V. GROSS I. INTRODUCTION The Eighth Amendment provides one of the most important protections for citizens—prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.1 Since the founding of the United States, the death penalty has been left to the states to implement, so long as it does not violate the Eighth Amendment.2 As a result, states have ratified their criminal codes and constitutions to keep their method of capital punishment within the constitutional limits.3 Challenges to states’ methods of execution began as early as the mid-1800s.4 In one such case from 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Glossip v.
    [Show full text]
  • Ally, the Okla- Homa Story, (University of Oklahoma Press 1978), and Oklahoma: a History of Five Centuries (University of Oklahoma Press 1989)
    Oklahoma History 750 The following information was excerpted from the work of Arrell Morgan Gibson, specifically, The Okla- homa Story, (University of Oklahoma Press 1978), and Oklahoma: A History of Five Centuries (University of Oklahoma Press 1989). Oklahoma: A History of the Sooner State (University of Oklahoma Press 1964) by Edwin C. McReynolds was also used, along with Muriel Wright’s A Guide to the Indian Tribes of Oklahoma (University of Oklahoma Press 1951), and Don G. Wyckoff’s Oklahoma Archeology: A 1981 Perspective (Uni- versity of Oklahoma, Archeological Survey 1981). • Additional information was provided by Jenk Jones Jr., Tulsa • David Hampton, Tulsa • Office of Archives and Records, Oklahoma Department of Librar- ies • Oklahoma Historical Society. Guide to Oklahoma Museums by David C. Hunt (University of Oklahoma Press, 1981) was used as a reference. 751 A Brief History of Oklahoma The Prehistoric Age Substantial evidence exists to demonstrate the first people were in Oklahoma approximately 11,000 years ago and more than 550 generations of Native Americans have lived here. More than 10,000 prehistoric sites are recorded for the state, and they are estimated to represent about 10 percent of the actual number, according to archaeologist Don G. Wyckoff. Some of these sites pertain to the lives of Oklahoma’s original settlers—the Wichita and Caddo, and perhaps such relative latecomers as the Kiowa Apache, Osage, Kiowa, and Comanche. All of these sites comprise an invaluable resource for learning about Oklahoma’s remarkable and diverse The Clovis people lived Native American heritage. in Oklahoma at the Given the distribution and ages of studies sites, Okla- homa was widely inhabited during prehistory.
    [Show full text]