2008 Woodie Awards
Court rules on death penalty
States must decide speed of lethal injections
By: THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Issue date: 4/17/08 Section: State
COLUMBUS - The prosecution of Ohio's death penalty cases received a boost yesterday when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Kentucky's similar lethal injection procedure.
The decision, however, does not necessarily quash the claims of a group of Ohio death row inmates who argue that Ohio's lethal injection procedure violates the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. There are roughly 20 inmates who are close to having execution dates set.
"This pushed it back to the states to decide what [the decision] means for them," said Doug Berman, a law professor at Ohio State University.
Death penalty cases in Ohio had stopped moving over the past several months while the U.S. Supreme Court took up a case by Kentucky inmates who alleged that there were more humane ways to carry out executions than the state's three-drug injection regimen. The court ruled yesterday that the inmates hadn't met the burden of proof in showing that Kentucky's procedure, along with its failure to adopt a different and untested measure, constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
Ohio's death-penalty cases, which weren't under a formal moratorium, could now begin moving again. But the speed at which they do so depends on how quickly or forcefully top state officials, such as the governor or attorney general, respond to the decision, Berman said.
They could ask courts to dismiss appeals from death-row inmates based on the Supreme Court decision, for example.
Gov. Ted Strickland said he hasn't yet been able to determine the legal ramifications of the decision.
Ohio also uses a regimen to sedate, paralyze and kill inmates, although its procedure is not identical.
"You would just think that because the methodology is quite similar that the legal outcome would be similar as well," Strickland said. "But I just don't want to make that assumption without having a little deeper understanding about what they said."
The Supreme Court ruling means that Ohio's lethal injection procedure would be found constitutional, said Ohio Solicitor General Bill Marshall, who represents Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann in appellate cases.
The decision, however, does not necessarily quash the claims of a group of Ohio death row inmates who argue that Ohio's lethal injection procedure violates the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. There are roughly 20 inmates who are close to having execution dates set.
"This pushed it back to the states to decide what [the decision] means for them," said Doug Berman, a law professor at Ohio State University.
Death penalty cases in Ohio had stopped moving over the past several months while the U.S. Supreme Court took up a case by Kentucky inmates who alleged that there were more humane ways to carry out executions than the state's three-drug injection regimen. The court ruled yesterday that the inmates hadn't met the burden of proof in showing that Kentucky's procedure, along with its failure to adopt a different and untested measure, constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
Ohio's death-penalty cases, which weren't under a formal moratorium, could now begin moving again. But the speed at which they do so depends on how quickly or forcefully top state officials, such as the governor or attorney general, respond to the decision, Berman said.
They could ask courts to dismiss appeals from death-row inmates based on the Supreme Court decision, for example.
Gov. Ted Strickland said he hasn't yet been able to determine the legal ramifications of the decision.
Ohio also uses a regimen to sedate, paralyze and kill inmates, although its procedure is not identical.
"You would just think that because the methodology is quite similar that the legal outcome would be similar as well," Strickland said. "But I just don't want to make that assumption without having a little deeper understanding about what they said."
The Supreme Court ruling means that Ohio's lethal injection procedure would be found constitutional, said Ohio Solicitor General Bill Marshall, who represents Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann in appellate cases.
Be the first to comment on this story