[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----OKLA., ARIZ., NEV., CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Feb. 2



OKLAHOMA:

Oklahoma could execute doctors for performing life-saving abortions if GOP 
lawmaker gets his way


A new bill proposed in the Oklahoma legislature would define the medical 
procedure for any pregnancy termination as criminal murder. The law also 
doesn't provide any accommodations for a mother whose life and health is at 
risk if there are complications from the pregnancy.

The bill comes from Republican state Sen. Joseph Silk, who is known for a 
series of anti-choice antics at the Oklahoma state capitol while lobbying for a 
prohibition on abortion in the state???s Constitution. He's affiliated with a 
group Abolish Human Abortion, known for harassing women who volunteer at 
clinics, hanging huge banners over overpasses and standing outside of polling 
places with signs purporting to show fetuses.

There is little in the bill other than it would name the medical procedure 
"murder." The law would charge the doctors that perform the abortions with 
1st-degree murder, but it doesn't outline if any charges would be filed for the 
woman seeking the procedure. Punishments for women could be the same as 
criminal prosecution for an accessory to the crime. That would mean if a woman 
is dying as a result of a pregnancy with complications and has an abortion she 
could be thrown in jail along with the doctor who refused to let her die. 
1st-degree murder in Oklahoma is punishable by the death penalty, so the 
doctors would be put to death under the so-called pro-life law.

"We either protect life as a state, or we don't," Silk told Oklahoma's KTUL. "A 
4-week-old fetus in the womb is no different than a 1-year-old child."

In an interview with Raw Story, Democratic State Rep. Monroe Nichols explained 
that the law is so far outside of the mainstream that conservative Gov. Mary 
Fallin (R-OK) vetoed similar legislation last year.

"I believe strongly that we should all be working to reduce the number of 
abortions," Nichols said. "But they should be safe and legal. The fact is, 
abortions are down nationally and that's because of education and availability 
of contraception, both things many conservatives would like to see us backtrack 
on."

Nichols similarly told KTUL that the rate of unwanted pregnancies is down as 
well as teen pregnancy.

"And it's not because we filed some unconstitutional piece of legislation," he 
continued. "But because we found ways to come together and make sure the type 
of education and type of resources are out there to help people through that."

Silk justifies his bill on the grounds of his own moral beliefs.

"As a legislator, my primary goal is to protect innocent life through the bills 
that I author," Silk also explained. A fact-check, the oath of office in 
Oklahoma does not include a vow to "protect innocent life" though it does 
mandate all legislators pledge to uphold the Constitution of the United States 
and the State of Oklahoma.

Nichols told KTUL that the law is absolutely unconstitutional. Passage would 
likely result in another costly lawsuit for a state that has spent millions to 
defend right-wing laws over the last several years.

The Oklahoma ACLU has vowed to fight the legislation if it is enacted.

"I think, anytime that you take away a woman's autonomy and say that she is 
incapable of making the most basic and fundamental decisions about herself and 
her reproductive health and her reproductive freedom, that's misogynistic," 
ACLU Executive Director Ryan Kiesel told KFOR.

Silk also made a name for himself by pushing legislation for Oklahoma to secede 
from the United States even after President Donald Trump took office. He filed 
a bill to make it legal to discriminate against LGBT people and is behind the 
Oklahoma version of the anti-transgender bathroom bill. He has ties to the 
anti-LGBT group the Family Research Council, which is listed by the Southern 
Poverty Law Center as a hate group.

(source: rawstory.com)






ARIZONA:

Lawyers for Arizona inmates criticize revised execution procedures


Lawyers for death-row inmates said recent changes to Arizona's procedures for 
carrying out the death penalty didn't do enough to confront abuses in the 
state's power to decide the methods and amounts of drugs used in executions.

The state released the revisions to the procedures earlier this month as it 
battles an inmate lawsuit that challenges the way the state handles the death 
penalty. Executions in Arizona remain on hold until the lawsuit is resolved.

Attorneys for the condemned inmates said in court papers filed Friday that the 
state's corrections director, under the revisions, still has complete freedom 
to deviate from the written procedures.

They say the revisions let the corrections director change timeframes for 
disclosing the types and amounts of drugs when he determines that there's an 
unexpected contingency. The lawyers for inmates said this particular revision 
is meaningless as an accountability check because it depends on the corrections 
director's subjective conclusion.

The state says the revisions take away the power of the corrections director to 
deviate from key aspects of the execution process, such as doses of drugs, but 
they do let him depart from the procedures in a limited way when addressing 
unforeseen contingencies.

The lawyers for the inmates said the revisions wouldn't have done anything to 
prevent the problems experienced during the July 2014 execution of Joseph Wood, 
who was given 15 doses of sedative midazolam and a painkiller and who took 
nearly 2 hours to die. His attorney said the execution was botched.

Executions in Arizona were put on hold after Wood's death.

The inmates' lawyers criticized a portion of the revised procedures that said 
the corrections director is free to change the quantities or types of drugs 
used in executions, even if he makes that decision on the day of the execution. 
They say this is unconstitutional because same-day notices deny prisoners a 
chance to challenge the methods of executions.

Attorneys for the state said in court papers that no court has ever found 
Arizona's execution procedures or how they are carried out to be 
unconstitutional.

About a month ago, the state agreed to settle part of the lawsuit that claimed 
the use of the midazolam doesn't ensure that inmates won't feel the pain caused 
by another drug in a 3-drug combination. The state eliminated its use of 
midazolam because its supply had expired and another supplier couldn't be found 
amid pressure from death penalty opponents.

Similar challenges to the death penalty are playing out in other parts of the 
country that seek more transparency about where states get their execution 
drugs.

States are struggling to obtain execution drugs because European pharmaceutical 
companies began blocking the use of their products for lethal injections.

(source: Associated Press)






NEVADA:

Jury to decide on death penalty for convicted killer Brandy Stutzman


On Thursday, the prosecution and defense will offer their closing arguments in 
the penalty phase of Brandy Stutzman's case. She's charged with 1st-degree 
murder in the 2010 stabbing death of her husband, Joe. If she's sentenced to 
death, she will be the 1st woman on death row in Nevada in more than a decade.

The 37-year-old didn't take the stand, instead read an allocation, addressing 
the court and asking to be spared the death penalty.

"I would like to ask that if you choose to spare my life, that I am able to 
have and grow a relationship with my family," said Stutzman.

She wiped tears as friends and family took the stand, describing her upbringing 
as tragic, saying Stutzman was the victim of abandonment as a child, and then 
sexual assault as a teenager.

"Our family was very dysfunctional, the way we were raised was very 
dysfunctional," Brandy's sisters, Jamila Merritt told the court.

Stutzman mother left her a child while caught in a cycle of drug and alcohol 
addiction. Debra Ann Merritt Norfleet cried as she explained what she did.

"I thought I was being selfish to Brandy. That she shouldn't be around that 
kind of stuff. So I chose on an Easter to give her to my mother," said Debra.

Stutzman asked the court to allow her the time to spend with her son, even from 
behind bars.

"I would love to be a part of my son's life because he is my entire world," she 
said.

But, her father, Barry Norfleet; who's been taking care of her son since 2010, 
said she was never a great mother. That he was concerned with the boy's welfare 
and the things that were going on in her house when her husband Joe was 
overseas.

"Kids in and out of the house and their behavior," he said, adding he was 
talking about teenagers.

Joe Stutzman's mother wasn't able to attend the proceedings, citing a medical 
condition. But she penned a letter that was read aloud to the court by Chelsea 
Garvin. She wrote, "I try to convince my heart that you actually thought you 
would get away with this, who else could you have left Aaron a virtual orphan?"

Family friends tell News 3 that Stutzman and Joe both had their demons and 
wrestled with prescription drugs, but said their child deserves more. "Losing 
one parent is enough," said Michele Whittenburg who's known Stutzman since she 
was a child. She said, "The picture that's been painted of this young lady is 
wrong. It's not accurate at all."

Her accomplice, Jeremiah Merriweather, already pleaded guilty in the case.

Court resumes at 10:30 a.m. Thursday at the Regional Justice Center.

(source: KSNV newsd)






CALIFORNIA:

State Supreme Court to review measure to speed up executions


The state Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide the legality of a 
voter-approved initiative designed to speed up executions in California and 
extended its order blocking enforcement of the measure, Proposition 66.

The court had put Prop. 66 on hold in December, before it was to take effect, 
to allow time for written arguments on whether a suit by opponents of the 
measure should be dismissed without a hearing. On Wednesday, all five justices 
taking part in the case voted to grant review and scheduled further briefings 
from both sides through April 6. At that point, they are likely to schedule a 
hearing, while keeping Prop. 66 on hold.

California voters approved Prop. 66 by a 51 % majority on Nov. 8. Prosecutors 
and other supporters of Prop. 66 said it would restore the effectiveness of the 
death penalty by reducing the time needed to decide appeals, typically 20 years 
or more.

The measure would require the state Supreme Court to rule on death penalty 
appeals within 5 years of sentencing, more than twice as fast as its current 
pace. One effect of that timetable would be to force the court to devote more 
of its time and staff to capital cases and less to other criminal and civil 
cases on its docket. The measure does not say what would happen if a case took 
longer than 5 years to decide.

Prop. 66 also would set the same 5-year deadline for the 2nd-stage appeals 
known as habeas corpus and would require defense lawyers to file those appeals 
to the trial judge within a year, compared with the current 3-year deadline. 
Habeas corpus usually involves such post-trial claims as incompetent legal 
representation and misconduct by the prosecutor or jurors and has often been 
the basis for federal court rulings overturning California death sentences.

Another provision would expand the pool of defense lawyers by requiring 
attorneys to take capital cases if they accept court appointments to represent 
defendants in other criminal cases. Supporters said the change would ease the 
shortage of available attorneys that is one reason appeals take so long, but 
opponents said it would put condemned inmates' fate in the hands of unqualified 
lawyers and prompt many attorneys to refuse future assignments.

The suit, filed by former state Attorney General John Van de Kamp and Ron 
Briggs, a former El Dorado County supervisor, contends Prop. 66 would interfere 
with courts' constitutional authority to decide cases, would cause "confusion 
and upheaval" in the state's judiciary, and would force both courts and lawyers 
into hurried and less-reliable decisions in capital cases.

Wednesday's court order also allowed sponsors of Prop. 66 to defend the measure 
in court alongside lawyers for the state. Kent Scheidegger, legal director of 
the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation and a drafter of Prop. 66, said he was 
not surprised that the court had granted review of the measure but was 
disappointed that it would remain on hold.

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye and Justice Ming Chin removed themselves from 
the case because they are members of the state Judicial Council, a defendant in 
the suit. They will be replaced by 2 appeals court justices, yet to be named.

The case is Briggs vs. Brown, S238039.

(source: San Francisco Chronicle)






USA:

Trump's Supreme Court Pick Determined That A Badly Botched Execution Was An 
"Innocent Misadventure"----Judge Neil Gorsuch has heard - and sided with the 
government in - several recent and important execution cases.


Judge Neil Gorsuch has been front and center as Oklahoma's death penalty 
process has been repeatedly called into question in recent years, hearing key 
cases at the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit over the state's handling 
of executions - and siding with the government.

Just a few months ago, Gorsuch - now President Trump's nominee for the Supreme 
Court - ruled against the estate of a man who was executed in one of the worst 
botched lethal injections in US history. Gorsuch and 2 other judges ruled that 
it was an "innocent misadventure" or an "isolated mishap," but not cruel and 
unusual punishment.

In that case, Clayton Lockett's estate sued the state of Oklahoma for 
constitutional violations in his 43-minute execution. Lockett was given a 
controversial sedative called midazolam, then 2 drugs that cause immense pain: 
a paralytic and a drug to stop the heart.

After he was injected with the drugs, Lockett raised himself on the gurney and 
said, "Shit is fucking with me." Executioners had thought he was already dead. 
Members of the state's execution team examined his IV, which was set up near 
his groin and covered by a blanket. When they moved the blanket, they 
discovered the IV had infiltrated, creating swelling the size of between a golf 
ball and a tennis ball. The drugs weren't going into his veins like they were 
supposed to.

The prison warden called it a "bloody mess." The state attempted to call off 
the execution 30 minutes in, but Lockett died anyway 10 minutes later.

"Everyone acknowledges that Lockett suffered during his execution," Judge 
Gregory Phillips wrote in a ruling against his estate, which Gorsuch signed on 
to.

"Here, the Amended Complaint describes exactly the sort of 'innocent 
misadventure' or 'isolated mishap' that" a prior Supreme Court case "excuses 
from the definition of cruel and unusual punishment," the court wrote. "Thus, 
Lockett's suffering did not run afoul of the Eighth Amendment."

The judges ruled that Oklahoma was not "deliberately indifferent" in the 
execution.

"Simply put, the Eighth Amendment does not require 'the avoidance of all risk 
of pain in carrying out executions.'"

After Lockett's botched execution, Oklahoma was allowed to try again in another 
execution. The state used the wrong drug on an inmate, and his last words were 
that his body felt like it was on fire.

Months later, the state nearly made the same mistake again - a step that led a 
grand jury to begin investigating the state's mistakes. This past year, the 
grand jury concluded that most corrections employees "profoundly misunderstood" 
what they were supposed to be doing during the lethal injection. "Although some 
[executioners] ... were able to intelligently testify regarding the Protocol, 
the majority simply could not," the report found.

The state's attorney general, Scott Pruitt, said that some executioners were 
"careless, cavalier and in some circumstances dismissive of established 
procedures that were intended to guard against the very mistakes that 
occurred." (Pruitt is now Trump's nominee to run the Environmental Protection 
Agency.) Years before these mistakes happened, Gorsuch was one of the judges 
who upheld the use of midazolam as an execution sedative, as well as Oklahoma's 
execution procedures.

The inmates "have failed to establish that the use of midazolam in their 
executions, either because of its inherent characteristics or its possible 
negligent administration, creates a demonstrated risk of severe pain," Judge 
Mary Briscoe wrote in an opinion that Gorsuch joined.

At that time, the drug midazolam had already been used in other botched 
executions, including a nearly 2-hour execution in Arizona.

Oklahoma's expert, Dr. Lee Evans, did not cite scholarly research, but instead 
relied on the website Drugs.com, which carries the disclaimer that it is "not 
intended for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment."

The inmates' attorneys alleged Evans made several mistakes in his testimony.

"Although plaintiffs point to what they perceive as a number of errors in Dr. 
Evans' testimony," the 10th Circuit judges wrote, "we conclude these errors 
were not sufficiently serious to render unreliable Dr. Evans' testimony 
regarding the likely effect of a 500 milligram dose of midazolam, or to 
persuade us that the district court's decision to admit Dr. Evans' testimony 
amounted to an abuse of discretion."

The US Supreme Court agreed in 2015.

Since then, there have been several problematic executions in which the drug 
has been used. In 1 Alabama execution, the inmate had his eyes open throughout 
the lethal injection. In another, the inmate heaved and coughed and clenched 
his fists.

(source: BuzzFeedNews)