A fed­er­al District Court judge ruled that Missouri​’s pro­posed changes to its lethal injec­tion process still do not meet the con­sti­tu­tion­al requirments under the Eighth Amendment. Judge Fernando Gaitan ruled on September 12 that Missouri may use a doc­tor in good stand­ing to pre­side over exe­cu­tions rather than requir­ing a board-cer­ti­fied anes­the­si­ol­o­gist, as he first ordered in the case of Michael Taylor. However, oth­er aspects of Missouri’s new pro­to­col still do not suf­fi­cient­ly pro­tect against the risk of a cru­el and unusu­al pun­ish­ment. Judge Gaitan gave the state until October 27 to sub­mit revised protocols.

(Associated Press, Sept. 12, 2006).

Similar con­sid­er­a­tions will be reviewed when a District Court judge in California reviews that state’s lethal injec­tion pro­to­col in hear­ings begin­ning on September 26. All exe­cu­tions have been on hold in both of these states as the lethal injec­tion pro­ce­dures are being reviewed. Federal judges in Delaware and Arkansas have also stayed exe­cu­tions in light of lethal injec­tion chal­lenges. In New Jersey, a state appel­late court imposed a mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions while the state pur­sues a clear­er ratio­nale for its lethal injec­tion process. In South Dakota, exe­cu­tions are on hold until the state leg­is­la­ture meets in July 2007 to con­sid­er changes to its process.

In Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court unan­i­mous­ly ruled in June that Clarence Hill can bring a chal­lenge to the state’s lethal injec­tion process through a sec­tion 1983 civ­il rights chal­lenge. Nevertheless, the gov­er­nor signed a death war­rant for Hill for September 20. A fed­er­al District Court recent­ly reject­ed Hill’s lethal injec­tion suit with­out an evi­den­tiary hear­ing and denied a stay of exe­cu­tion. An appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit is like­ly.
(DPIC, var­i­ous sources, Sept. 13, 2006). See DPIC’s Lethal Injection page and Methods of Execution.

Citation Guide