 |
|
|
 News from Around the Americas | June 2006 
US Top Court: Death Row Inmates Can Pursue Appeals
 James Vicini - Reuters
| | Exonerated death row inmate Earl Washington Jr., is shown outside the courthouse in Charlottesville, Va., in the May 5, 2006, file photo, after a federal jury awarded him $2.25 million. The jury ruled that his confession to a rape and murder he did not commit was deliberately fabricated by a state police investigator. Washington filed the lawsuit against the estate of Curtis Reese Wilmore, who died in 1994. Virginia taxpayers have paid $532,880 in legal fees in the case. That amount does not include fees for the two week trial, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported Wednesday, May 31, 2006. (AP/Nathan Beck) |
Washington - The US Supreme Court ruled on Monday that death row inmates can challenge the lethal injection method of execution and can get new hearings when DNA or other evidence later casts doubt on their guilt.
In a pair of important rulings, the high court kept alive a Florida death row inmate's challenge to the state's three-chemical cocktail and said a Tennessee death row inmate may proceed with his innocence claims, based on new evidence.
The justices unanimously ruled that Florida death row inmate Clarence Hill can pursue his challenge to the chemicals on the grounds they could cause unnecessary pain.
In the other case, the court by a 5-3 vote said Tennessee death row inmate Paul House should get a new chance to prove his innocence, based on DNA and other evidence unavailable at the time of his conviction for the 1985 murder of a female neighbor.
The court cited DNA tests showing the semen on the victim's clothes actually belonged to her husband and other evidence he may have committed the murder. Also, small blood stains found on House's jeans may have spilled on the pants from vials of blood taken from the victim during an autopsy.
"The central forensic proof connecting House to the crime - the blood and semen - has been called into question, and House has put forward substantial evidence pointing to a different suspect," Justice Anthony Kennedy said for the majority.
Nationwide Impact
Peter Neufeld, co-director of the Innocence Project, a group that supported House, hailed the ruling and predicted it would have nationwide impact.
"New scientific evidence can change the entire landscape of a case that resulted in conviction, and today's ruling makes it clear that people should have an opportunity to seek new trials where juries can hear all the facts," he said.
In the Florida case, the ruling for Hill allowed him to proceed with his claims before a lower federal court. It also could encourage other death row inmates in the United States to bring similar challenges.
Deborah Denno, a Fordham University law professor who specializes in the death penalty, said of the ruling, "This is a huge step forward for this issue and it indicates the court is taking these lethal injection challenges very seriously."
The ruling, also written by Kennedy, only decided that Hill could bring the challenge and did not address the merits of his underlying claim against lethal injection.
All but one of the states with the death penalty and the federal government use lethal injection for executions. The only exception is Nebraska, which requires electrocution.
The standard method involves administering three separate chemicals: sodium pentothal, an anesthetic, which makes the inmate unconscious; pancuronium bromide, which paralyzes all muscles except the heart, and then potassium chloride, which stops the heart, causing death.
Hill's lawyers cited a 2005 study published in the Lancet medical journal that found that pancuronium bromide can cause suffocation while potassium chloride can cause burning in the veins and massive muscle cramping before death.
In allowing the challenge to proceed, Kennedy cited a 2004 Supreme Court ruling that an Alabama death row inmate could pursue a last-ditch claim his death by lethal injection would be unconstitutionally cruel because of his damaged veins.
Kennedy said federal courts should protect states from "dilatory or speculative suits." And he said that filing such a lawsuit does not automatically entitle the inmate to an order staying the execution. |
| |
|
Vallarta Weddings
Tell a Friend
Site Map
Print this Page
Email Us