Federal Judge’s Ruling May Halt Future Executions in Arizona

A drug used in Arizona executions has passed its medical expiration date as a federal court hears a lawsuit claiming that the drug violates the Eight Amendment, potentially creating an indefinite hold to executions in the state

First Amendment Coal. of Ariz. Inc. v. Ryan, 2016 BL 160709, D. Ariz., No. 2:14-cv-01447, 5/18/16.

    A federal judge in Arizona refused to dismiss a lawsuit claiming that a drug used in the three step execution process in the state violated the Eight Amendment. The drug, however, reached its medical expiration date on May 31, 2016, effectively putting executions on an indefinite hold. The main argument against the the drug, midazolam, is that it violates the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment because it does not always render an inmate unconscious.

    The judge notes that Glossip v. Gross does not control because the inmates in the case were able to provide alternative protocols that are considered less painful, such as removing midazolam from the cocktail or replacing it with another drug, satisfying the Supreme Court’s holding in that case.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/First_Amendment_Coal_of_Ariz_Inc_v_Ryan_No_CV1401447PHXNVW_2016_B?1465246384

After 30 Years, Race-Biased Conviction Overturned

Striking potential jurors based on race is unconstitutional, reaffirming earlier Supreme Court ruling preventing the use of race in jury selection

Foster v. Chatman, 2016 BL 162869, U.S., No. 14-8349, reversed and remanded 5/23/16

 

    The United States Supreme Court ruled that peremptory jury strikes motivated by race are impermissible, reaffirming the court’s 1986 ruling in Batson v. Kentucky.  Annotations along names of black jurors, such as “Definite No” and “No. No Black Church” were “as clear as a Batson violation as a court is ever going to see.”

    

   The Supreme Court focused on two jurors who were stricken. The state offered 11 neutral, non-race based reasons for striking the first juror and eight reasons for the second juror. The Court, however, found the reasons unconvincing and merely suggested pretext. In the opinion, the Court notes the “focus on race in the prosecution’s file plainly demonstrates a concerted effort to keep black prospective jurors off the jury.” 

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Foster_v_Chatman_No_148349_2016_BL_162869_US_May_23_2016_Court_Op