« Arkansas Parole Board recommends clemency for one of eight condemned scheduled for execution later this month | Main | Federal district judge declares unconstitutional Arizona law requiring defendant to prove lack of sexual intent for contact with child »
April 6, 2017
Split Sixth Circuit panel uphold injunction blocking Ohio lethal injection protocol
A split Sixth Circuit panel today In re: Ohio Execution Protocol, No. 17-3076 (6th Cir. April 6, 2017) (available here), upheld a preliminary injunction blocking Ohio from moving forward with a number of scheduled executions. Here is how the majority opinion authored by Judge Moore gets started:
Ohio’s current execution protocol allows for execution by lethal injection using a three-drug combination of (1) midazolam; (2) either vecuronium bromide, pancuronium bromide, or rocuronium bromide, which are paralytics; and (3) potassium chloride, which stops the heart. R. 667-1 (Ohio DRC Execution Protocol, 01- COM-11 at 2) (Page ID #19813). The purpose of the first drug is to ensure that the person being executed is insensate to the pain that the second two drugs cause. It is undisputed that if the first drug does not “render the prisoner unconscious,” then “there is a substantial, constitutionally unacceptable risk of suffocation . . . and pain” from the second two drugs. Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 53 (2008) (plurality op.). The ultimate question in this case is whether use of midazolam as the first drug in this three-drug protocol “entails a substantial risk of severe pain” as compared to “a known and available alternative.” Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726, 2731 (2015). The question before us at this preliminary stage, however, is much narrower. We ask only whether the district court abused its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction to allow for further litigation regarding midazolam’s efficacy before Ohio executes Ronald Phillips, Raymond Tibbetts, and Gary Otte. For the reasons discussed below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court granting the preliminary injunction.
Here is how the dissenting opinion by Judge Kethledge gets started:
Roughly two decades have passed since the plaintiffs in this case murdered their victims. Ronald Phillips raped a three-year-old girl and beat her so badly that her internal organs ruptured. For two days she suffered intense abdominal pain and vomiting, until her heart collapsed. See State v. Phillips, 656 N.E.2d 643, 650-52 (Ohio 1995). Gary Otte entered the home of an Ohio man, robbed him, and then shot him in the head. Two nights later, Otte pushed his way into a woman’s home and did the same things to her. After each murder Otte went out partying. See State v. Otte, 660 N.E.2d 711, 715-16 (Ohio 1996). Raymond Tibbetts killed an elderly man and his caretaker. Police found the man slumped in his chair with butcher knives protruding from his chest and back. His caretaker lay on the floor in a pool of blood with her skull cracked open and its contents scattered nearby. See State v. Tibbetts, 749 N.E.2d 226, 237–39 (Ohio 2001).
Phillips, Tibbetts, and Otte now claim that Ohio’s Execution Protocol would cause them to suffer severe pain in violation of the Eighth Amendment. In a sense the claim is unprecedented: the Supreme Court “has never invalidated a State’s chosen procedure for carrying out a sentence of death as the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment.” Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726, 2732 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). The State’s chosen procedure here is the same procedure (so far as the combination of drugs is concerned) that the Supreme Court refused to invalidate in Glossip. Yet the district court thought we should likely invalidate that procedure, and today the majority agrees. I respectfully disagree and would reverse the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction.
A lengthy faculty meeting and a coming class mean I will not have a chance to read this extended opinion until late tonight, but I can already confidently predict that the State of Ohio will seek en banc review of this ruling and perhaps even Supreme Court review, if necessary.
April 6, 2017 at 03:45 PM | Permalink
Posted by: Joe | Apr 6, 2017 3:50:09 PM
More 'rat judging. Are they serious? Ohio is estopped from using three-drug protocol? Ridiculous. By the by, how many AEDPA reversals has Karen Nelson Moore swallowed? I think she's gotten some summary reversals.
Posted by: federalist | Apr 6, 2017 4:05:11 PM
The first paragraph of J. Kethledge's opinion that is quoted above serves zero purpose in the legal analysis. Its sole purpose is to enflame the passions of the reader for vengeance, the law be damned.
Sorry Kethledge, as much as you may not like it, the Constitution protects even those who do horrible things. Your thinly-veiled attempt to improperly sway the legal analysis has no real place in judging.
Posted by: Anon | Apr 6, 2017 11:07:57 PM
" Its sole purpose is to enflame the passions of the reader for vengeance, the law be damned."
Anon, its taken directly from Clarence Thomas's playbook. Of course the crimes are horrible, they're capital murder cases. It's his bitterness at the end of the decision accusing the petitioners of gamesmanship that really disturbs. If he were right his analysis would stand on its own, that he thinks he needs to resort to such childishness is troubling.
Posted by: Cleveland Attorney | Apr 7, 2017 2:21:37 PM