"Appeals court upholds Arkansas execution rules," is the AP report filed late Friday afternoon. It's via WCM-TV.
A federal appeals court has upheld the dismissal of lawsuits by death-row inmates that challenged the way Arkansas conducts executions.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday denied the appeals on grounds that the lawsuits only speculated about possible problems and didn't identify constitutional violations.
Marcel Wayne Williams filed one lawsuit and seven other condemned inmates joined in a similar court action.
The inmates argued that the state shouldn't be allowed to change its lethal injection procedures without proper notice and that the uncertainty heightened their anxiety about suffering as they are being killed.
And:
The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports a separate lawsuit in Pulaski County Circuit Court is under appeal after a judge ruled part of the 2009 execution protocol law is unconstitutional.
The 8th Circuit's ruling in Williams v. Hobbs is available in Adobe .pdf format.
Courthouse News Service posts, "Arkansas Death Penalty Fight Lacks Evidence," by Joe Harris.
To substantiate concerns that prison officials may not use anesthesia during executions, the prisoners cited two newspaper articles among their evidence. One article from Ohio discussed a worldwide shortage of anesthesia, and a second article quoted an Arkansas public information officer discussing his belief that Arkansas' Administrative Procedures Act gives the corrections department flexibility in the types of chemicals used.
"The public information officer's statement regarding the flexibility afforded by the act is merely speculation that the director might one day change the chemicals used in the protocol," Judge Diana Murphy wrote for a three-judge panel. "This is no different than what the prisoners were able to show prior to discovering the new evidence. Similarly, the fact that anesthesia is in short supply worldwide does not indicate that the Arkansas Department of Correction is in short supply of the drug. This evidence only indicates that a future shortage of anesthesia might cause the director to exclude it from the protocol. The prisoners thus cannot meet the required showing that this evidence would have produced a different result."
The prisoners' concerns represent speculation, not fact, according to the court.
"We agree with the state that the prisoners can do no more than speculate on this point," Murphy wrote. "They cannot concretely show that the director is likely to eliminate anesthesia at the time of execution. Rather, they only show that the act makes it 'conceivable' that he will do so. ... This is not the 'significant risk' of increased punishment needed for a violation of the ex post facto clause. ... The speculative nature of the prisoners' theory is compounded by the fact that the Arkansas legislature passed the act over two years ago and the director has yet to eliminate the use of anesthesia."
Judges James Loken and C. Arlen Beam sat on the panel with Murphy.
Earlier coverage of lethal injection issues in Arkansas begins at the link. Related posts are in the lethal injection index.
Comments