Death During Botched Execution Does Not Create Eighth Amendment Claim

An execution that left the inmate in serious pain for 43 minutes was not cruel and unusual punishment because the botched procedure was an isolated mishap, barring the defendant's estate from pursing an Eight Amendment claim 

Estate of Lockett v. Fallin, 2016 BL 379808, 10th Cir., No. 15-6134, 11/15/16.

The Tenth Circuit found that a botched execution does not create an Eighth Amendment claim on behalf of ax executed inmate because such a mishap was isolated and there will always be inherent pain associated with an execution. The decision clarified whether an inmate’s estate can maintain a claim of “cruel and unusual punishment” by only showing that the execution was a painful procedure.  The cause of the botched procedure was due to a poorly inserted IV by the prison’s staff that did not efficiently supply the deadly cocktail of drugs. The court found that mistakes such as this did not reach the level of “torture or deliberate indifference” in sustaining an Eighth Amendment claim. Additionally, the court rejected the estate’s argument that the state was indifferent about the well-being of the inmate by using a new cocktail of lethal drugs. The change in drugs was not due to indifference, but due to a lack of the other drugs that have been used before.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Estate_of_Lockett_v_Fallin_No_156134_2016_BL_379808_10th_Cir_Nov_.

Recent SCOTUS Decision Does Not Retroactively Apply to Juvenile Plea Bargain

A plea bargain entered by a defendant to avoid the death penalty as a juvenile is not retroactively affected by a Supreme Court decision that found juvenile death sentences to be unconstitutional

Dingle v. Stevenson, 2016 BL 354573, 4th Cir., No. 15-6832, 10/25/16.

The Fourth Circuit did not expand the scope of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) to retroactively apply to defendants who entered into plea deals to avoid the death penalty as juveniles. In the original case, the defendant avoided a possible death penalty or life sentence without parole by entering into a plea deal while he was still seventeen. The defendant argued that his plea was involuntary because he was threatened with what is now considered an unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment. The court, however, found that his guilty plea and subsequent sentence were entirely unrelated to the Supreme Court’s decision. The court stated that “[A]lthough Roper, in hindsight, altered the calculus underlying Dingle's decision to accept a plea agreement, it does not undermine the voluntariness of his plea.”  The Supreme Court’s decision only applies if the defendant is actually sentenced to death or life without parole.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Dingle_v_Stevenson_No_156832_2016_BL_354573_4th_Cir_Oct_25_2016_C.

Reversal of Death Sentence Due to the Testimony of the Victim’s Family

During sentencing, courts cannot allow relatives of a murder victim present victim-impact statements that recommend that the killer be sentenced to death, restricting earlier Supreme Court precedent.

Bosse v. Oklahoma, 2016 BL 338178, U.S., No. 15-9173, 10/11/16.

The United States Supreme Court reversed a death row inmate’s sentence because of victim-impact statements made by the family that suggested the death penalty for the convict were improper. This decision clarifies an earlier ruling from 1991 that allowed certain victim-impact statements to be used during trial, limiting the statements from directly recommending to the jury how to convict and sentence a defendant.

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Bosse_v_Okla_No_159173_2016_BL_338133_US_Oct_11_2016_Court_Opinio?1476478854

At Voir Dire, Judges Must Interview Prospective Jurors if they Ambiguously Oppose Death Penalty

If a juror provides an ambiguous answer to whether they would not impose the death penalty, the judge has the obligation to interview the candidate further to determine their view on the issue

People v. Covarrubias, 2016 BL 293182, Cal., No. S075136, 9/8/16.

The California Supreme Court held that jury candidates that are opposed to the death penalty can be removed, but if their answer is ambiguous, then the court must interview the candidate personally to clarify their stance. The case arose because of a juror that marked on a written questionnaire that he was “strongly opposed” to the death penalty and would “probably refuse” to impose it. The prosecutor successfully challenged and removed the candidate from the jury pool. The court found this to be an error, however, because the judge should not have removed him without further investigating his views, especially since the same juror said he would “probably” be able to set aside his personal beliefs in sentencing.

The trial court has the obligation to investigate any ambiguous statements made by a juror. The error, however, does not reverse the conviction but does require a reversal of the death sentence.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/People_v_Covarrubias_No_S075136_2016_BL_293182_Cal_Sept_08_2016_C.

Delaware’s Death Penalty is Unconstitutional Due to its Sentencing Procedures

After reviewing Delaware’s sentencing procedures, its supreme court ruled that the death penalty is unconstitutional because judges have too much power to make factual findings during sentencing

Rauf v. State, 2016 BL 249274, Del., No. 39, 8/2/16.

   The Delaware Supreme Court held that its state’s death penalty was unconstitutional because a sentencing judge had too much power in making factual findings, thereby violating the Sixth Amendment. The ruling follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Hurst v. Florida, which required juries, not judges, to decide the facts of the case necessary to justify the death penalty. The court stated that “the Sixth Amendment right to a jury includes a right not to be executed unless a jury concludes unanimously that it has no reasonable doubt that is the appropriate sentence.” While the court attempted to sever or cure the problematic portions of the sentencing statute, it was unable to do so, ultimately leading to their decision to invalidate the entire death penalty statute.

   After this decision, Delaware becomes the 20th state to have ended capital punishment. There are currently 18 inmates on death row in the state.

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Rauf_v_State_No_39_2016_2016_BL_249274_Del_Aug_02_2016_Court_Opin?1470844238

Arkansas Not Required to Reveal Lethal Injection Drug Supplier

The Arkansas Supreme Court found that inmates have no constitutional right to require the state to disclose the source of the drugs used in lethal injections

Kelley v. Johnson, 2016 BL 203211, Ark., No. CV-15-992, 6/23/16.

   In a case from Arkansas, the state Supreme Court found that there was no constitutional right for inmates “to know” the source of the drug used in their future lethal injection executions. The prisoners argued that a more humane alternative, such as firing squad, existed, which would make death by lethal injection a violation of the Eight Amendment. The court rejected these arguments, noting that neither disclosing the supplier would “positively enhance the functioning of executions in Arkansas” and that there were no viable alternatives in operation that would be feasible, readily implemented, and would be cause less pain and suffering than lethal injection.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Kelley_v_Johnson_2016_Ark_268_Court_Opinion.

Without Recusal, State Judge Violated Due Process

After authorizing prosecutors to seek the death penalty as a former district attorney, a Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice should have recused himself to avoid violating the due process rights of the convict

Williams v. Pennsylvania, 2016 BL 184130, U.S., No. 15-5040, 6/9/16.

    The Supreme Court found that a Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice should have recused himself in hearing a habeas corpus petition by a convict on death row. The conflict of interest arose because the justice was a former District Attorney that authorized prosecutors to seek the death penalty against this same convict almost 30 years ago.

   The court in making this decision found that the justice’s participation violated the “due process maxim” that “no man can be a judge in his own case.” The state argued that the justice, as a district attorney, only participated in the case as an administrator, but the United States Supreme Court rejected the argument. They found that during his candidacy for the state supreme court he used the convict and other death penalty sentences to support his platform, thereby taking responsibility for the conviction and sentence.

   In the dissent, Chief Justice Roberts argued that due process is only violated “when a judge adjudicates the same question—based on the same facts—that he had already considered as a grand juror in the same case.” He agreed that the Pennsylvania justice should have recused himself, but not due to a constitutional concern, but rather a concern of the states in setting forth its own judicial procedures.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Williams_v_Pennsylvania_No_155040_US_June_09_2016_Court_Opinion?1466019882

Florida Death Sentencing Scheme Unconstitutional

Florida's "hybrid" jury advisory sentencing scheme, which did not require unanimity, was struck down under the Sixth Amendment.

 

Hurst v. Florida, U.S. No. 14-7505, decided on 1/12/16

    The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Florida capital punishment sentencing scheme that involved juries giving advisory verdicts which did not need to be unanimous, but took into account aggravating factors and punishment. Ultimately, the juries were told, the judges had the final decision for what punishment would be imposed.

    The Court stated that "[t]he Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death. A jury's recommendation is not enough."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-7505_5ie6.pdf