WRAL-TV posts, "Death penalty debate hinges on administrative procedures."
The North Carolina Supreme Court heard arguments Monday in a case that could change how the death penalty is administered.
Lawyers for five death row inmates contend that an administrative law judge was right to order state officials in 2007 to revamp North Carolina's protocol for executions.
"The execution protocol will subject inmates to substantial risks of excruciating pain and suffering," said David Weiss, one of the attorneys for the inmates.
The Council of State has to approve changes to death penalty procedures, but Assistant Attorney General Joe Finarelli argued that the administrative law judge never had the jurisdiction to order any changes. A Superior Court judge sided with the council in the dispute.
The state Department of Correction is exempt from much of the state law governing review of administrative procedures, Finarelli said, so inmates should have sued the state in Superior Court if they don't like the death penalty protocol instead of challenging it in an administrative hearing.
And:
The inmates' lawyers say the council signed off on changes to capital punishment protocol without hearing from advocates for condemned prisoners.
"We're not asking the court to render an opinion on the appropriateness of the execution protocol itself. We're simply asking that the court find that the administrative law judge properly exercised jurisdiction.
If the Supreme Court agrees, the case will go back to a lower court for review.
North Carolina hasn't carried out an execution since 2006 because of legal disputes over the protocol and whether physicians could participate.
Prior to the oral arguments, the Winston-Salem Journal offered at preview, "N.C. Supreme Court to hear arguments about death-penalty protocol," is the title of the news report in the Winston-Salem Journal.
An administrative law judge was right to order North Carolina's statewide elected officials to revise the protocol for the execution of prisoners on death row, according to attorneys who are preparing to make that case to the state Supreme Court on Monday.
The state's top court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in a case involving five death-row inmates that has partly contributed to an unofficial moratorium on capital punishment in North Carolina. A ruling in those inmates' favor wouldn't overturn the death penalty or immediately force revised protocols for carrying it out but would send the case to a lower court for review.
The case essentially centers on whether Administrative Law Judge Fred Morrison had sufficient jurisdiction to order the Council of State, which consists of North Carolina's 10 statewide elected officials, to revise the protocol governing the death penalty.
The council argued that Morrison's 2007 ruling lacked that force. A Wake County Superior Court judge ruled in the council's favor, and now attorneys for the death-row inmates are asking the Supreme Court to settle the issue.
"The Council of State's role, as outlined in the North Carolina statutes, is an important one that allows for transparent review before the execution is actually implemented," said Durham lawyer Mark Kleinschmidt, who represents death-row inmate Jerry Conner.
The inmates' attorneys argue that the council essentially failed to fulfill its duties in that role when it signed off on new execution procedures in February 2007. The new procedures had been announced by the state Department of Corrections about two weeks earlier, but a judge almost immediately entered a stay on several executions, citing a 100-year-old law requiring the council to approve any new death-penalty protocols.
The inmates contend that the council then hastily approved the protocol without hearing from those representing condemned prisoners, and Morrison agreed.
"The legislature intended that there be some public scrutiny and review about executions and the method of executions in the state in part to ensure it was not done in a tortuous manner," said Ken Rose, an attorney with the Center for Death Penalty Litigation who also represents Conner.
And:
The case has been one of several factors contributing to what is essentially an unofficial halt to executions in North Carolina. Revelations of flawed work by a state crime lab, and the Racial Justice Act, which allows death-row inmates to challenge their sentences based on statistical arguments about racial bias, have also played a role.
Another version of the preview is distributed by AP, written by Tom Breen. It's via the Myrtle Beach Sun News.
Earlier lethal injection news from North Carolina is at the link. Related posts are in the lethal injection index.
Comments