Sixth Circuit Reinstates Tennessee's Lethal Injection Procedure - UPDATED

AP reports, "Breaking News: TN's death penalty."  It's written by Michael Silence, via the Knoxville News Sentinel.

A federal appeals court has vacated a lower court's ruling that Tennessee's lethal injection process is unconstitutional.

In 2007, the U.S. District Court in Nashville supported a claim by convicted murderer Edward Jerome Harbison that the process violates his Eighth Amendment right because it involves an "unnecessary ... infliction of pain."

The state appealed based on a U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld Kentucky's lethal injection process, which is similar to Tennessee's. The case did not prevent Tennessee from carrying out another execution earlier this year.

The 6th Circuit on Thursday agreed with the state and vacated the injunction barring the state from executing Harbison, despite the dissension of one judge.

The ruling is here, in Adobe .pdf format. 

The Tennessean has, "Court of Appeals favors Tennessee's lethal injection process."  It's written by AP writer Lucas.

In 2007, the U.S. District Court in Nashville supported a claim by Edward Jerome Harbison, 54, that Tennessee's lethal injection process violates his Eighth Amendment right because it involves an "unnecessary ... infliction of pain." Harbison was convicted in the 1983 beating death of an elderly woman in Chattanooga.

The state appealed the lower court's ruling based on a U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld Kentucky's lethal injection process, which is similar to Tennessee's. The case did not prevent Tennessee from carrying out another execution earlier this year.

The 6th Circuit on Thursday agreed with the state and vacated the injunction barring the state from executing Harbison, despite the dissension of one judge.
Judge Eric Clay said an "evidentiary hearing" is necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision.

He said by failing to give the district court the chance to consider Tennessee's lethal injection process, the 6th Circuit "effectively usurps the district court's role as fact-finder and decides an issue never presented to the district court: whether there are material differences between Kentucky's and Tennessee's lethal injection protocols."

"As a court of appeals, we are obligated to provide the district court with the first opportunity to receive evidence and rule on this question," Clay wrote. "I therefore respectfully dissent."

Earlier coverage from Tennessee is here; related articles, in the lethal injection category.