High Court to Announce Opinions Tuesday
Lawyer Blogs
Several Supreme Court justices indicated yesterday that it may be difficult for them to definitely answer whether or when lethal injections violate the Constitution's protection from cruel and unusual punishment.
The morning arguments before the court came in a Kentucky case that has led to a halt to executions across the country. A lawyer arguing on behalf of two Kentucky death row inmates told the court that the three-drug protocol used by states and the federal government carries the potential to cause unnecessary and excruciating pain during executions.
"The risk here is real. That is why in the state of Kentucky it is unlawful to euthanize animals in the way it carries out its executions," said Washington lawyer Donald B. Verrilli Jr., who is representing Ralph Baze and Thomas Bowling in the case, Baze v. Rees.
The main problem, the court was told, is the second drug in the sequence, which paralyzes the muscles. If the inmate is not properly anesthetized, the paralytic could mask whether the condemned is in tortuous pain.
Justice John Paul Stevens said he was "deeply troubled" by the use of the second drug, but that there was nothing in the record in the Kentucky case that raised the issue in a way for the Supreme Court to make a definitive ruling. Kentucky, he said, seemed to have done a good job of administering the drugs in the state's only execution by lethal injection.
Justices David Souter and Stephen Breyer also said it might be better to send the case back to lower courts for a comparative analysis of whether the three-drug process carries more risk than an alternative, which uses only a massive dose of a barbiturate.
Related listings
-
Navy must cut sonar use off California
Lawyer Blogs 01/04/2008[##_1L|1369262445.jpg|width="130" height="132" alt=""|_##]A federal judge in Los Angeles on Thursday ordered the toughest set of restrictions ever imposed on the U.S. Navy's use of mid-frequency sonar off the Southern California coast as part of a pr...
-
Fla.: Feds Approve Gambling Agreement
Lawyer Blogs 01/03/2008[##_1L|1357596574.jpg|width="120" height="93" alt=""|_##]Federal authorities approved an agreement between Gov. Charlie Crist and the Seminole Tribe that allows expanded gambling at the tribe's casinos in exchange for payments to the state, officials...
-
Public Defender Builds Injection Case
Lawyer Blogs 01/02/2008One of the biggest capital punishment cases to come before the U.S. Supreme Court in a generation was put together largely by a young, fresh-out-of-law-school member of Kentucky's overworked and underpaid corps of public defenders.David Barron, 29, f...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.