On August 14, 2018, more than two decades after last putting a prisoner to death, Nebraska executed Carey Dean Moore (pictured). The execution—which used an untested drug formula of diazepam (the sedative Valium), fentanyl citrate (an opioid painkiller), cisatracurium besylate (a paralytic), and potassium chloride to stop the heart—took 23 minutes. It was the state's first execution ever by lethal injection. The first drug, diazepam, was administered at 10:24 am, and Moore, who had spent 38 years on death row, was pronounced dead at 10:47. Associated Press reporter Grant Schulte, a media witness who kept a timeline of events during the execution, reported that on three occasions prison officials dropped a curtain that prevented the witnesses from seeing portions of the execution, and that towards the end of the procedure Moore's face turned reddish, then purple. Joe Duggan, a journalist for the Omaha World-Herald, said the media witnesses could see the IV-line connected to Moore's arm, but could not see into the room where prison personnel controlled the flow of the drugs. "[I]t was not possible for us to know exactly when each drug was administered," he said. Brent Martin, reporting for Nebraska Radio Network, compared Moore's executions to the 13 executions he had previously witnessed in Missouri, saying "this was much longer." He also noted that the Nebraska team "approached it a bit differently" than had corrections officials in Missouri, where executions had "become routine." But, he said, "I didn't get any sense that it did not go other than how they planned it to go." Later, prison officials acknowledged the curtain had been lowered after the last drug was administered, preventing the reporters from witnessing Moore's reaction to that drug. Before the execution, Moore gave a written final statement in which he apologized to his younger brother, Don, for "bringing him down," and asked opponents of the death penalty to work on behalf of four men on Nebraska's death row who he said are innocent. Capital punishment has been a contentious issue in Nebraska. In 2015, the state legislature repealed the death penalty over the veto of Governor Pete Ricketts. Ricketts then sponsored a voter referendum to reinstate the death penalty, which succeeded in 2016. The state's last execution had been in December 1997, when Robert Williams was executed in the state's electric chair. The nearly 21-year period between executions in the longest time any state has gone between executions in modern U.S. history.
The Florida Supreme Court has halted the execution of Jose Antonio Jimenez (pictured), scheduled for August 14, 2018. The unanimous one-page order issued by the court on August 10 did not explain the reasons the justices granted the stay. However, Jimenez’s motion for a stay referenced 80 pages of police records that, Jimenez’s lawyer said, had not previously been provided to the defense. Those records—which were part of 1,000 pages of documents turned over to the defense two weeks before the scheduled execution—included hand-written notes by the investigating detectives that appear to contradict pre-trial testimony police had given in the case. The motion, filed by Jimenez's lawyer, Marty McClain, said the “previously unseen notes" contained "surprising and downright shocking information” that the lead detective (identified as a Detective Ojeda) and a second police investigator (identified as Detective Diecidue) gave “false and/or misleading” testimony “in order to facilitate Mr. Jimenez’s conviction” when they were deposed by Jimenez’s trial counsel. McClain told The News Service of Florida, “[t]he new documents show dishonest cops,” which has added significance in this case because Jimenez has maintained his innocence “and the conviction is premised on Ojeda telling the truth.” Jimenez also sought a stay pending the United States Supreme Court’s disposition of a Missouri death-penalty case, Bucklew v. Precythe, that could clarify the standard for determining when a state’s lethal-injection protocol is unconstitutional. Jimenez has argued that Florida’s use of the drug etomidate as a sedative during three-drug executions creates an unconstitutional risk of a torturous death. During Florida’s last execution, Eric Branch screamed when the execution drugs were administered. McClain said that expert testimony in another case had indicated that a quarter of executions using etomidate could result in prisoners screaming in pain. “Is it OK to have your condemned people scream 25 percent of the time?,” McClain said. “And what about the torture to those who are next, who know that 25 percent of the time people are in pain and screaming? Are they going to be the one?” The Florida Supreme Court has set a schedule for briefs to be filed in the case, with briefing concluding on August 28. The court will then decide whether it will hear oral argument in the case.
Over sharp dissents by justices of the U.S. and Tennessee Supreme Courts and lingering questions about the prisoner's history of mental illness and the efficacy of the state's lethal-injection protocol, Tennessee executed Billy Ray Irick (pictured) on August 9. He was the first person executed by the state since 2009. Justice Sonia Sotomayor described the process as a "rush to execute" and a descent into "barbarism." In the days leading up to the execution, the Tennessee Supreme Court and Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam rejected Irick's request for a stay or clemency. The state Supreme Court ruled on August 6 that Irick had failed to show his challenge to the execution protocol was likely to succeed on appeal, a requirement for the court to allow the lawsuit to proceed. Judge Sharon Lee dissented from the majority decision, writing, "The harm to Mr. Irick of an unconstitutional execution is irreparable. Yet the harm to the State from briefly delaying the execution until after appellate review is minimal, if any." Governor Bill Haslam declined to exercise his clemency power in Irick's case, saying that the judicial review of the case was "extremely thorough." Gene Shiles, Irick's attorney disagreed: "The truth is no facts relating to Billy’s state mind at the time of the offenses — including his hallucinations and talking to 'the devil' were ever considered by a single court on the merits. These facts, the most important to reasoned decisions as to guilt and punishment, were instead 'defaulted' and never weighed because they were determined to be untimely — raised too long after the trial." The U.S. Supreme Court denied a stay, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor strongly dissented from that denial, writing, "In refusing to grant Irick a stay, the Court today turns a blind eye to a proven likelihood that the State of Tennessee is on the verge of inflicting several minutes of torturous pain on an inmate in its custody, while shrouding his suffering behind a veneer of paralysis. I cannot in good conscience join in this 'rush to execute' without first seeking every assurance that our precedent permits such a result. If the law permits this execution to go forward in spite of the horrific final minutes that Irick may well experience, then we have stopped being a civilized nation and accepted barbarism." The Tennessean reported that Irick's execution was "certain to fuel a fierce national debate surrounding the drugs used to kill him, and if they amount to state-sanctioned torture." Federal public defender Kelley Henry said Irick exhibited signs of pulmonary edema during an execution that took more than twenty minutes. Henry said media witnesses had reported that “Mr. Irick ‘gulped for an extended period of time,’ was ‘choking,’ ‘gasping,’ ‘coughing,’ and that ‘his stomach was moving up and down.’ Witnesses described movement, including movement of the head, after the consciousness check. This means that the second and third drugs were administered even though Mr. Irick was not unconscious,” Henry said. Media reports indicated that the second and third drugs, a paralytic agent and potassium chloride, would cause a pain similar to drowning and being burned alive.
Less than a month after a Nevada court halted the execution of Scott Dozier in response to a lawsuit filed by generic-drug manufacturer Alvogen, another drug company has sued Nebraska, seeking to block the use of its medicines in an upcoming execution. The German-based pharmaceutical company Fresenius Kabi filed suit in Nebraska federal court on August 8, 2018 alleging that Nebraska intended to execute Carey Dean Moore on August 14 using drugs manufactured by the company that had been obtained "through improper or illegal means." The lawsuit said the company's distribution contracts with authorized wholesalers and distributors prohibit sales to departments of corrections, and it alleges that Nebraska obtained the drugs "in contradiction and contravention of the distribution contracts," most likely from an unauthorized supplier. Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson said the state's execution drugs “were purchased lawfully and pursuant to the State of Nebraska’s duty to carry out lawful capital sentences,” an assertion that cannot be verified because of the state's secrecy practices. The state has refused to identify the source of the drugs it intends to use in Moore's execution, but two of the drugs—the paralytic, cisatracurium, and potassium chloride, the drug used to stop the heart—are manufactured by Fresenius Kabi and only that company makes vials of potassium chloride in the size obtained by the state.
Nebraska is one of fifteen death-penalty states that have joined in an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief in the Nevada Supreme Court on August 6, 2018 urging the court to overturn a restraining order that has prevented Nevada from carrying out executions using supplies of the drug, midazolam, produced by the pharmaceutical company Alvogen. Alvogen's suit alleges that Nevada had obtained the midazolam "by subterfuge" and “intentionally defrauded Alvogen’s distributor” by concealing its intention to use Alvogen’s medicine in Dozier‘s execution. The company's pleadings accused Nevada of “implicitly ma[king] the false representation that they had legitimate therapeutic rationale” for buying the drug and covering up its true intention by having the drug shipped to a state office several hundred miles away from the prison. In addition to issuing the restraining order, the Nevada trial court stayed Dozier's July 2018 execution. Like Fresenius Kabi, Alvogen alleges that the use of its products in executions would damage its corporate reputation and adversely affect investor and customer relations. The amicus brief was filed by 15 of the 30 other states that authorize capital punishment, all with Republican attorneys general—Arkansas, Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah. The nine death-penalty states with Democratic attorneys general did not join the pleading, nor did six other states with Republican attorneys general. The pleading claims, without providing any factual support, that Alvogen's lawsuit is the "latest front in the guerilla warfare being waged by anti-death-penalty activists and criminal defense attorneys to stop lawful executions." The state officials warn that, if the Nevada Supreme Court allows Dozier's stay of execution to stand, activists will "flood" the courts in other states with similar "meritless" challenges. In 2017, the drug distributor McKesson sued Arkansas to prevent the state from using a supply of the paralytic drug, vecuronium bromide, in executions, alleging that the state had deliberately misled the company to believe that the drug would be used for legitimate medical purposes. The brief asserts that "Alvogen’s meritless claims mirror those rejected by the Arkansas Supreme Court" in McKesson case. However, court records reflect that the Arkansas Supreme Court actually returned McKesson's case to the trial court for further evidentiary development and the case remained active until the expiration of the state's supply of vecuronium bromide rendered the case moot in the Spring of 2018.
In First Post-Ferguson Election for St. Louis County Prosecutor, Death-Penalty Opponent Unseats Long-Time IncumbentPosted: August 8, 2018
In an election viewed as a referendum on racial justice and criminal justice reform, death-penalty opponent Wesley Bell (pictured, left) soundly defeated seven-term incumbent, Robert McCulloch (pictured, right) for the Democratic nomination for St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney. With no Republican opposition in the general election, Bell, a Ferguson, Missouri, city council member, is expected to become the county's first African-American chief prosecutor. The election was the first time McCulloch—who had a substantially larger campaign purse and was heavily favored to win—had faced the voters since the Ferguson protests and his failure to indict a white police officer for the murder of unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown. Bell, a former public defender and prosecutor who called for ending cash bail for nonviolent offenses, ending mass incarceration, and eliminating use of the death penalty, was endorsed by numerous activist organizations promoting criminal justice reform, including Democracy for America, The Color of Change, and The Real Justice PAC. Surprising the political establishment, Bell won easily, receiving 57% of the vote. McCullouch—the county's Prosecuting Attorney since 1991—was known as a highly aggressive prosecutor with close ties to the police and who disproportionately sought death sentences. Community activists and civil rights groups were galvanized in opposition to McCulloch after he failed to indict Officer Darren Wilson for Brown's murder, prosecuted Ferguson protesters, and advocated for the execution of death-row prisoner Marcellus Williams despite DNA evidence revealing that another man's DNA—and not Williams'—was on the murder weapon. A July 2015 study found that the county's death-penalty practices contributed significantly to stark racial and geographic disparities in the application of capital punishment in Missouri. The study found that a person convicted of homicide in St. Louis County is three times more likely to be executed than if he or she were convicted elsewhere in the state and 13 times more likely to be executed than a person convicted in neighboring St. Louis City. Courts also have repeatedly found that the county's prosecutors discriminatorily struck African Americans from jury service because of their race. St. Louis County ranks among the 2% of U.S. counties that have produced a majority of all death sentences in the U.S. since the 1970s, and it has executed more prisoners than all but eight other counties in the country during that period. Bell's campaign website says "capital punishment is expensive, ineffective at deterrence, and is also racially biased. ... [D]ecades of data and information determine that Capital Punishment is not a deterrent for violent crime. Exercising his discretion as Prosecuting Attorney, [Bell] will never seek the death sentence."
Two servicemen—one a former airman on the U.S. military death row, another a decorated Vietnam veteran sentenced to death in Pennsylvania—have won relief from their capital convictions or death sentences. On August 1, 2018, the La Crosse Tribune reported that an Air Force court martial jury had imposed a life sentence on senior airman Andrew Witt (pictured, left) following a three-week capital resentencing trial. The verdict in Witt's case came two years after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces—the nation's highest military court—overturned his 2005 death sentence for murdering a fellow airman and his wife. On July 25, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvana granted death-row prisoner Robert Fisher (pictured, right) a new trial and sentencing hearing in the July 1980 murder of his girlfriend. If that case continues to a new capital trial, it will be Fisher's third trial and fourth capital sentencing hearing. Witt's conviction in 2005 marked the first time a U.S. airman had been sentenced to death since 1992. His death sentence was first overturned in August 2013, when the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals—an intermediate appellate court—ruled that his lawyers had been ineffective in failing to present mitigating evidence that he had suffered a traumatic brain injury four months before the murders. The military appealed that decision, and Witt's death sentence was reinstated by the Air Force Court of Appeals in July 2014. However, the Armed Forces appeals court agreed that Witt's penalty-phase lawyers had been ineffective and remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing. With Witt's resentencing, four prisoners remain on the U.S. military death row. Twelve other servicemen have had their military death sentences reduced to life in prison. In Fisher's case, the federal court granted a new trial after the trial judge misinstructed the jury on the meaning of "reasonable doubt." It reversed Fisher's death sentence because the prosecution had sought the death penalty based on an aggravating circumstance that did not exist at the time of his first trial and because his lawyer failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence related to Fisher's military service in Vietnam, where he received a Purple Heart from President Lyndon Johnson (also pictured). This was not the first time that one of Fisher’s trials was problematic. At his first trial, Fisher’s lawyer had him tell the jury about his military service and his Purple Heart medal but failed to investigate any problems related to Fisher’s military service. Additionally, no mental health expert testified at Fisher’s sentencing to explain his brain damage, the psychological after-effects of intense combat, or his other serious mental health impairments, drug usage, and adjustment difficulties after returning from Vietnam. His defense lawyer also failed to rebut the prosecution’s portrayal of Fisher as simply a bad soldier.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled on July 27, 2018 that Christopher S. McDaniel (pictured), an investigative reporter for BuzzFeed News, may proceed with his lawsuit challenging the Missouri Department of Corrections's policy for selecting execution witnesses. McDaniel, who has written numerous articles exposing irregularities in Missouri's execution procedures, applied to the Director of the Department of Corrections in 2014 to witness executions in Missouri, stating in his witness application that he wanted to observe executions "[t]o ensure that this solemn task is carried out constitutionally." The Department has never responded to McDaniel's application and he has not been permitted to witness any of the 17 executions carried out in the state since then. The lawsuit, filed on McDaniel's behalf by the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, alleges that neither McDaniel nor any other person whose witness application "expressed a desire to ensure that execution[s] were carried ou[t] properly and constitutionally" has been accepted as a witness, and that McDaniel also had been rejected as a witness because he has written articles critical of Missouri's administration of its death penalty. Working first for St. Louis Public Radio and laterw for BuzzFeed News, McDaniel's reporting revealed that Missouri had obtained lethal-injection drugs for executions carried out in 2013 and 2014 from an unlicensed out-of-state compounding pharmacy that committed nearly 1,900 violations of pharmacy regulations before it was sold and its assets auctioned off to help repay defaulted loans. In February 2018, he reported that the compounding pharmacy to which Missouri then switched to carry out 17 executions between 2014-2017 had been deemed "high risk" by the Food and Drug Administration because of the company's hazardous pharmaceutical practices. McDaniel reported that the state had paid the company—which was alleged to have engaged in illegal practices, Medicare fraud, and numerous manufacturing improprieties—more than $135,000 for execution drugs. The court wrote that "McDaniel’s allegations support a plausible claim that an applicant’s viewpoint is a factor used by the Director when considering whom to invite as a witness." Though the state argued that McDaniel did not have standing to file suit, the court found "McDaniel’s allegations that the Director’s policies provide an opportunity to exclude McDaniel based on his viewpoint and that the Director has excluded McDaniel and all applicants sharing his particular viewpoint are sufficient to give him standing to press the claim."
A federal district court has vacated the murder conviction of Arizona death-row prisoner Barry Jones (pictured) in the death of 4-year-old Rachel Gray, and has ordered the state to immediately retry or release Jones. On July 31, 2018, U.S. District Judge Timothy Burgess granted a new trial to Jones, who has spent 23 years on Arizona’s death row, finding that if Jones had been competently represented at trial, “there is a reasonable probability that his jury would not have convicted him of any of the crimes with which he was charged and previously convicted.” Jones has consistently maintained his innocence. Jones’s case was tainted by what Judge Burgess called a “rush to judgment” by police investigators. His conviction was based largely on questionable eyewitness testimony from two 8-year-olds, combined with unreliable forensic testimony. A medical examiner who testified against Jones later gave contradictory testimony about the timing of the victim’s fatal injury that would have ruled out Jones as a suspect. Police failed to investigate evidence pointing to other suspects, and Jones’s defense team failed to examine alternative theories of the crime. Jones was also convicted of raping Gray, despite the lack of any evidence that the alleged rape occurred at the time she sustained her fatal abdominal injury. Judge Burgess found that both Jones’s trial lawyer and the lawyer Arizona appointed to represent him in his state post-conviction proceedings were ineffective, and that both failed to conduct professionally appropriate investigations into the case. He wrote that trial counsel “failed to perform an adequate pretrial investigation, leading to his failure to uncover key medical evidence that Rachel’s injuries were not sustained on May 1, 1994”—the day the prosecution said Jones raped and killed her—and unreasonably “fail[ed] to impeach the state’s other physical and eyewitness testimony.” Sylvia Lett, Jones’s former appellate attorney, summarized the judge’s findings, saying, “He saw the state’s investigation for what it was, which was shoddy, the defense investigation for what it was, which was nonexistent, and he said, ‘That’s not fair.’ And that’s how it’s supposed to work.” A decade ago, the federal courts would have considered Jones’s ineffective assistance claim waived because of his prior lawyers’ failures to raise it in state court, and Jones likely would have been executed. However, in 2012 in Martinez v. Ryan, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal habeas corpus courts may review a state prisoner’s claim that his trial lawyer was ineffective if the failure to raise the claim in state court resulted from additional ineffective representation by his state post-conviction lawyer. The federal courts had originally refused to hear Jones’s claim, but after Martinez was decided, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sent the case back to the district court for further consideration.
Pope Francis (pictured) has formally changed the official Catholic Church teaching on the death penalty, calling capital punishment “an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” and deeming it “inadmissible" in all cases. The Vatican's August 2, 2018 announcement that it had revised its Catechism—the Church's official compilation of teachings on a wide range of issues—to unambiguously oppose capital punishment also committed the Church to work “with determination” to abolish the death penalty worldwide. Prior to the revision, the Catechism used softer language on the death penalty, allowing it “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor,” while noting that “the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.’” In a letter to Bishops accompanying the change, Pope Francis wrote, “This conclusion is reached taking into account the new understanding of penal sanctions applied by the modern State, which should be oriented above all to the rehabilitation and social reintegration of the criminal. Finally, given that modern society possesses more efficient detention systems, the death penalty becomes unnecessary as protection for the life of innocent people.” His letter places the new stance in the context of the Church's broader teachings on the dignity of human life, and previous statements by Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis on the need to end capital punishment. Vatican observers said there is no mistaking the political intent of the new revision. The letter to the bishops said the new doctrine sought to “give energy” to efforts working “for the elimination of the death penalty where it is still in effect.” Vatican expert and author John Thavis called Pope Francis's action “the next logical step” in the evolution of formal Catholic opposition to the death penalty. “I think this will be a big deal for the future of the death penalty in the world,” Thavis said. “People who work with prisoners on death row will be thrilled, and I think this will become a banner social justice issue for the church.” The new catechism also poses a direct challenge to Catholic politicians like Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, who has sought to bring capital punishment back in his nation, and U.S. governors such as Greg Abbott and Pete Ricketts of Texas and Nebraska, who have made support for the death penalty a cornerstone of their policies. “There is no doubt the pope wants politicians to pay attention to this,” said John Gehring, the Catholic program director at the advocacy group Faith in Public Life. “He is not just speaking internally. The pope wants to elevate this as a definitive pro-life issue.”
The latest edition of Discussions with DPIC features H.E. Miller, Jr. and Bradley MacLean, co-authors of a recent study on the application of Tennessee's death penalty. Miller and MacLean describe the findings from their article, Tennessee's Death Penalty Lottery, in which they examined the factors that influence death-penalty decisions in the state. Based on their survey of thirty years of homicide cases, they found that whether a death sentence is imposed is influenced far less by the circumstances of the offense than by arbitrary factors such as geography, race, and the poor quality of defense representation. MacLean says, "It operates just like a lottery. There's no rationale, there's no rhyme or reason for why an infinitesimally small number of defendants are sentenced to death and even a much smaller number are actually executed, as compared to all the defendants who are convicted of first-degree murder." The authors collected data on more than 2,500 first-degree murder cases in Tennessee from 1977-2017, and found that about 3.5% of first-degree murder defendants have been sentenced to death and fewer than 0.3% have been executed. Those few who are selected for the death penalty, though, do not represent the worst of the worst, with about 90% of multiple-victim murders resulting in life sentences. "The bottom line is, the people who get the death penalty are the most vulnerable, not the ones who commit the worst crimes," MacLean said. In the podcast, the authors also discuss the litigation surrounding Tennessee's method of execution, saying, "If the state can't get their method of execution right, then how can we expect them to get anything else right about the system?" They conclude, "The whole point of our study was to look at whether we have properly addressed the problem of arbitrariness that the Supreme Court talked about in Furman [v. Georgia, which declared all U.S. death-penalty statutes unconstitutionally arbitrary in 1972]. Our conclusion is that our system is no less arbitrary, it is just as arbitrary, as the systems that existed before Furman was decided. ...That's why we believe that our system is clearly unconstitutional."