« "Make new crack law retroactive" | Main | Contrasting congressional hearings concerning federal criminalization »

September 27, 2010

California lethal injection litigation continues as condemns refuses "unconstitutionally medieval" choice

As highlighted by this AP article and this CNN piece, a whole new round of litigation has been spurred by US District Judge Jeremy Fogel's decision made this past Friday to permit California to move forward with a planned execution (basics here).  Here are the basics from the AP:

A death row inmate on Sunday asked a federal appeals court to halt his execution as he declined to choose a method for the lethal injection.  Lawyers for Albert Greenwood Brown filed court papers to appeal a federal judge's refusal to block the execution, which is set for Wednesday.

Brown also let pass a noon deadline set by the judge to choose between a one-drug lethal injection or execution by a three-drug cocktail. His attorney called such a choice "unconstitutionally medieval."

Brown's refusal to choose means a three-drug cocktail will be used in his execution if the appeals court doesn't block California's first execution in nearly five years.  He was sentenced to die for abducting, raping and killing 15-year-old Susan Jordan, of Riverside County, in 1980.  U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel denied Brown's two requests Saturday to change his mind about going forward with the execution.

In one court filing, Brown's attorney John Grele said he discussed the injection options with his client Saturday.  Grele said the two had an unproductive meeting because there are too many unknown elements about the injection process to properly advise his client in such a short time. "Mr. Brown has not had time to think about these matters or to weigh his options," Grele wrote....

Brown's latest appeal will be heard by a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal panel of three judges, all of whom were appointed by former President George W. Bush.

The inmate also planned Monday to ask a Marin County Superior Court judge to block his execution while a recently filed lawsuit challenging the state's lethal injection regulations is pending.

Brown also has petitioned Gov. Schwarzenegger for clemency, which is opposed by the Riverside County District Attorney Rod Pacheco and the victim's family.

September 27, 2010 at 09:16 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e20133f49f7cc1970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference California lethal injection litigation continues as condemns refuses "unconstitutionally medieval" choice:

Comments

The motion is unfair. What choice of anesthesia did the murder victim get offered before the appellant performed his procedures on her? The defense lawyer is highly offensive in his advocacy. This is lawyers being disgusting, and needing corporal punishment. I blame the Ninth Circuit judges that agreed to listen to this joke of a motion. I see no difference between conservative and liberal judges. They are totally united in their support of the rent, lawyer job creation, and hyper-proceduralism. Their acceptance likely generated a minimum of $100K in costs to the taxpayer of California. They are sickening, morally speaking as well as gustatorily speaking. That money should be considered stolen.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Sep 27, 2010 10:35:03 AM

I rather suspect that Mr Brown has had ample time to consider his options. Unless, that is, he actually believe it could never come to this point. As we're talking about CA, that's not utterly impossible.

Posted by: John | Sep 27, 2010 11:03:51 AM

Fogel's opinion was good but I still don't see how he can order the state to switch to 1 drug. It has been overruled several times in other courts and with Baze. Fogel should know this. Let us see if the 9th can see this and vacate that part of the order and let it proceed. What "unknown elements" about the injection process? It's either 3 or 1. Not rocket science.

Posted by: DaveP | Sep 27, 2010 12:05:18 PM

Using words like 'barbaric' or 'medieval' like this makes me question whether they have any grasp on what the words mean.

Posted by: MikeinCT | Sep 27, 2010 12:24:32 PM

Perhaps Brown should request the gas chamber if he feels uncomfortable with a couple of pin pricks in his arms. He is getting off quite easy compared to the young victim.

Posted by: DaveP | Sep 27, 2010 12:33:46 PM

I don't believe in the death penalty, but if anybody deserves it, is this guy. He is lucky he has evaded death for 30 years.

Posted by: EJ | Sep 27, 2010 1:36:33 PM

MikeinCT --

"Using words like 'barbaric' or 'medieval' like this makes me question whether they have any grasp on what the words mean."

They mean what they've always meant, to wit, that abolitionists feel like insulting their opponents is a birthright. It happens on this blog nearly every day.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 27, 2010 2:54:55 PM

I have read a good deal about Medieval law, because we are practicing their law nearly unchanged, which is incompetent and in violation of the Establishment Clause for its reliance on the New Testament. I have not come across such a situation as above. I would appreciate a reference where I could find it.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Sep 28, 2010 9:55:31 AM

bill: "abolitionists feel like insulting their opponents is a birthright"

me: so says the man who says that anyone who disagrees with him about any political issue hates America.

Posted by: virginia | Sep 28, 2010 6:26:23 PM

Virginia: I would like to see you swear allegiance to America in writing, right here.

Next, I would you to utter the V word, which no lawyer will ever do. The V word stand for Victim. You cannot even say the round about abbreviation, V word, I bet.

You will choke and pass out, vomit, etc. before coming close to those utterances.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Sep 28, 2010 8:42:21 PM

Ginny --

"...so says the man who says that anyone who disagrees with him about any political issue hates America."

I guess I forgot to mention that abolitionists -- or at least you -- feel like it's their birthright to fabricate the views of their opponents.

Of course you can prove me wrong by quoting a single post of mine that states or implies that ANYONE who disagrees with me about ANY POLITICAL ISSUE hates America.

So go ahead and quote it.

No dodging, no fancy dance. Quote it.

P.S. Many conservatives and libertarians disagree with my preference to keep a variety of drugs illegal, including some of my most consistent "allies" on this site. About which of them have I said that they "hate America?"

P.P.S. I note that you choose to do the ad hominem thing and conspicuously do NOT contest the proposition that abolitionists view insulting retentionists as their birthright. In that regard, you might check out the numerous posts of abolitionists claudio, neanderthal and John K.

P.P.P.S. Of course there ARE people who hate America, aren't there?

Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 28, 2010 9:00:11 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB