January 21, 2012
Ohio asks SCOTUS to vacate stay of state execution
As reported in this AP piece, "Ohio has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the state’s lethal injection procedures, arguing that minor deviations in policy don’t mean the system is unconstitutional." Here are the basics:
The office of Attorney General Mike DeWine says that, without Supreme Court action, Ohio is in danger of having dozens of executions delayed on a case-by-case basis.
The appeal filed Friday asks the court to let Ohio put to death 45-year-old Charles Lorraine, sentenced to die for fatally stabbing an elderly couple in Warren in 1986.
U.S. District Court Judge Gregory Frost halted Lorraine’s execution on Jan. 12, saying the state failed to properly document the drugs used in its last execution in November and failed to review the medical chart of the inmate who was put to death.
Because Lorraine's execution was scheduled for last week, it is unclear to me whether the state expects or even wants the Supreme Court to rule on this motion to vacate the stay very quickly. Notably, the introduction in Ohio's SCOTUS filing concludes this way:
The State has scheduled executions into 2014, with the next one planned for February 22, 2012. There are 101 Ohio capital inmates who have raised these equal protection claims — 87 as parties to this litigation and 14 who have filed similar complaints. If this Court does not vacate the district court’s stay, these executions may not go forward because, in the words of the Sixth Circuit, “the federal courts [will] monitor every execution on an ad hoc basis.” Appx. A at 2. Given the weakness of the district court’s legal foundation, that result cannot stand.
These points suggest to me that Ohio is right now less concerned with getting Lorraine executed ASAP and more concerned that it may be unable to move forward with the sizeable number of other executions scheduled for 2012 and beyond.
Some related posts concerning Ohio's recent lethal injection litigation:
- Federal district judge finds Equal Protection Clause violated by Ohio's injection processes
- New Ohio lethal injection ruling provides lessons in litigation realities, the rule of law and a law of rules
- Ohio decides not to appeal federal district court ruling in Smith halting execution
- Ohio ready to try to get its machinery of death back in operation
- Federal judge again halts Ohio execution because state not following its own protocol
- Sixth Circuit panel upholds stay of Ohio's next planned execution
January 21, 2012 at 09:12 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ohio asks SCOTUS to vacate stay of state execution:
Doug, do you have a link to the filing?
At the end of the day, Frost would have been ok had someone approved the deviation. So now the identity of the person approving the deviation is an EPC issue?
This is silly.
Posted by: federalist | Jan 21, 2012 3:45:00 PM
no fed it's not! what is silly and CRIMINAL is the state thinks it can lie to judges over and over and over and NOT get called on it or even face a punishment!
Posted by: rodsmith | Jan 22, 2012 3:41:59 PM
I dont see how the state has lied to the judge, Frost's unhinged comments in his silly opinion notwithstanding.
Posted by: federalist | Jan 22, 2012 10:26:09 PM
Then federalist, you clearly have not taken the time to read (for comprehension, not for soundbite) the Smith-Brooks-Lorraine trilogy of opinions. Do so. The Lorraine opinion cannot be understood properly standing as an isolated opinion. The state has clearly lied to frost, and now they are complaining how its so unfair they can't have their execution parties. The Teatard "government sucks because it's always incompetent" crowd should be all over this story...crickets...crickets...crickets...
Posted by: Sysephus | Jan 23, 2012 12:36:48 AM
Oh, I've taken the time to read Judge Frost's various oeuvres in these cases. That he's a federal judge issuing coercive orders is the only reason one cannot call him Gratiano (of the Merchant of Venice), as in "Gratiano speaks an infinite deal of nothing . . . ."--read the whole quote--it would aptly apply to the learned judge, other than the fact that he is, by title, a federal judge.
(By the way, I take your reference to "soundbites" as taking me to task for quoting the learned judge. That's hardly fair. I quoted him. Deal with that.) No one has defended any of the quotes, and a lot of people who seem to like Frost's result don't seem to have a whole lot of stomach for taking me on.
Certainly, you noted that I made a reference to Frost's comments about the lying. First off, not following through on a promise made is not lying (unless, of course, there was never any intention of carrying through on the promise). So when he says that the State of Ohio is lying, that's just hyperbole. Second, he calls two members of the team liars without making any findings or documenting his case. A federal judge casually calling people liars in a written opinion without setting forth detailed findings is simply astounding--and one more reason why this unhinged judge needs to be removed from the case.
Posted by: federalist | Jan 23, 2012 2:53:32 PM
lol i have to give you this one fed!
" First off, not following through on a promise made is not lying (unless, of course, there was never any intention of carrying through on the promise)."
of course since it was done in the middle of a COURT CASE and UNDER OATH the proper term would be FRAUD and PERJURY!
Posted by: rodsmith | Jan 24, 2012 12:25:19 PM
Yes you do, rod, because I am right. And it's surpassing strange that you insist on ridiculous standards of compliance (i.e., no switching the official who calls time of death), yet are somehow cool with a federal judge littering an opinion with casual assertions of lying.
Posted by: federalist | Jan 24, 2012 2:14:42 PM
i'm not cool as you call it with federal or any other judge or govt offical lying! as my numerous posts about holding them acountable prove.
in this case we have a judge who has looked at and overseen court hearing after court hearing....court order after court order where THIS state has agreed to do "X" and FAILED! and he's called them on it!
Posted by: rodsmith | Jan 25, 2012 10:28:40 AM
i guess he could have used diff words.
maybe something like
"hey DUMB SHITS! is there any REAL REASON you can't manage to follow the rules YOU SETUP? what are you retarded or something? or are you just to stupid to be able to read?"
but of course that would have been politically INCORRECT as well!
Posted by: rodsmith | Jan 25, 2012 10:30:32 AM