USLegal Reporter

Following the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision Thursday, which reversed a district court order to stay the lethal injection execution of Mark Dean Schwab pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Baze v. Rees, the U.S. Supreme Court, also on Thursday, stayed the execution of Schwab, pursuant to his filing a writ of certiorari, shortly before he was scheduled to be executed.

Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/11/us-supreme-court-stays-execution-of.php

The Florida Supreme Court unanimously held Thursday that its lethal injection procedures, including more recently implemented safeguards, do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The Florida Attorney General stated that the state plans on moving forward with the execution of Mark Dean Schwab, scheduled for November 15, 2007.

Schwab, who was convicted of a 1991 rape and murder, claimed that the chemicals used in lethal injection methods can cause excruciating pain and that new evidence shows he personally suffers from a brain impediment. The argument regarding pain caused by lethal injection chemicals is identical to the claim in the Kentucky case that is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/11/florida-supreme-court-upholds-state.php

The U.S. Supreme Court late Tuesday granted Earl Wesley Berry’s stay of execution pending the Court’s decision on granting certiorari. Berry was scheduled to be executed by lethal injection for the murder of a woman he kidnapped in 1987.

The stay adds to the list of three other stays granted by the Supreme Court after its decision to review the constitutionality of the lethal injection methods in a Kentucky case.

Richard Dieter, the executive director of the Anti-Capital Punishment Death Penalty Information Center claims that a de facto moratorium on executions by lethal injection is now in place.

Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/10/supreme-court-blocks-mississippi-lethal.php

A federal appeals court Wednesday stayed the lethal injection of Daniel L. Siebert, whose execution was scheduled for Thursday for several murders in 1986. Following the refusal by the federal district court in Alabama to stay his exectuion, Siebert appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Siebert, who suffers from pancreatic cancer, claimed that the drugs used for lethal injection could negatively interact with his cancer medications to cause unnecessary pain and suffering.

The state argued that Sibert could be executed using a modified procedure, but the modifications did not involve any change to the chemicals or to the sequence in which they are administered. The federal appeals court held that the changes to the protocol were ‘minor’ and stated that the execution shold be postponed until the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of lethal injection.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/10/federal-appeals-court-stays-alabama.php

Pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in a Kentucky case regarding the constitutionality of the three drug cocktail used in lethal injection executions and in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to stay an execution in Virginia upon a constitutional challenge to lethal injection, the Georgia Supreme Court last Thursday granted a stay to Jack Alderman, who was scheduled to be executed by lethal injection Friday for the murder of his wife in 1974.

Monday of this week, the Georgia Supreme Court again halted an execution scheduled for Tuesday of Curtis Osborne, who was convicted of double murder in 2001.

Source: http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=607&docId=l:l:689311086&topicId=12755&source=undefined&start=2&topics=single

The U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday granted a motion to stay the lethal injection execution of Christopher Scott Emmett, a Virginia capital murder and robbery convict. This adds to the list of states that have delayed executions pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Baze v. Rees to determine whether lethal injection procedures constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. As recently as Monday, a Nevada court also stayed all executions in the state, including the execution of convict, William Patrick Castillo.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1737670520071017?sp=true; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/16/AR2007101601894.html?hpid=sec-metro

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has stopped the execution of Heliberto Chi. Chi is an inmate from Honduras who was convicted in 2001 for killing a store clerk. His execution was halted last Tuesday in order to allow the Texas state prison system to address questions regarding whether lethal injection constitutes unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment. The move by the Court of Criminal Appeals came after the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles voted to reject a stay for Chi. 

The Texas Defender Service stated that Texas will not likely perform any more executions until the Court of Criminal Appeals rules on the issue.

Source: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5181963.html;

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007_10_03_indexarch.php#4995735310672583854

The U.S Supreme Court Thursday granted Carlton Turner, Jr.’s request for stay of execution while it reviews the constitutionality of lethal injection procedures. The Dallas County, Texas Trial Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals earlier rejected Turner’s request for a stay.

Turner was scheduled to be executed Thursday as early as four hours prior to the Court’s decision for killing his adoptive parents in 1998. The Court’s decison came less than two hours before the expiration of Turner’s death warrant and two days after the Court decided to review an appeal from Kentucky inmates who claim that the lethal injection three-drug mixture constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. On the day the Court agreed to review the appeal from Kentucky, Texas executed Michael Richard by injection.

Also on Thursday, Alabama’s governor temporarily halted an execution to allow the state to review its lethal injection methods.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2743672120070928?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

The Wake County, North Carolina Superior Court ruled Friday that the North Carolina Medical Board may not discipline physicians who participate in executions. The court held that state requirements that a physician ‘attend [executions] and provide professional medical assessment’ supersede the Medical Board’s ethical prohibition of doctor participation in carrying out the death penalty.

A North Carolina judge last year ordered and The Council of State approved, a new lethal injection protocol that required physicians to monitor inmates during executions. North Carolina law now mandates that a physician must assess the inmate’s vital signs and prevent an execution where undue suffering exists. Doctors, however, felt compelled to comply with the Medical Board’s policy that forbids physicians from participation. The policy, which was issued in January, states that physicians may be present during executions but those who participate are subject to discipline as such participation goes against the role of a physician to preserve life.

The court denied the Medical Board’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the North Carolina State Department of Corrections in March, which claims that the ethics policy prevents state prison officials from carrying out executions. The court indeed delayed two executions in January when physicians refused to participate.

Source: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/711786.html; http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/09/north-carolina-medical-board-cant.php

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee held Wednesday that Tennessee’s new execution protocols are considered cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

In April, the Tenneseee Department of Corrections reviewed the process of administering executions and developed new procedures after Tennessee’s Governor Phil Bredesen issued a 90-day moratorium on executions in February due to inconsistent instructions for lethal injection and electric chair executions. Tennessee executed the first person under the newly accepted procedures in May.  

The protocols provide specific lethal injection guidelines but retain the three-drug cocktail, which has been purported as failing to prevent excessive pain and suffering. The court ruled that the new procedures do not mandate proper anesthesia prior to lethal injection. As a result, the court delayed the execution of Edward Harbison, who was set to be executed next week for killing an elderly woman during a burglary.

Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/09/federal-judge-rules-tennessee-lethal.php