Post by Anja on Jun 22, 2006 18:07:29 GMT -5
Md. judge casts doubt on execution process-----Ruling criticizes how state
adopted lethal injection
An administrative law judge has issued a decision in the case of death row
inmate Vernon Lee Evans Jr. that could force Maryland to redevelop its
lethal injection procedures.
The decision stems from an inmate grievance Evans filed -- along with
bringing state and federal lawsuits -- challenging how Maryland carries
out executions and how the procedures were developed.
It is a tentative finding that may be accepted or disregard by Mary Ann
Saar, secretary of the state's Department of Public Safety and
Correctional Services.
Judge Denise Oakes Shaffer found that the execution protocols are state
regulations, which means they must be developed in compliance with
Maryland's Administrative Procedures Act. That requires oversight by the
attorney general's office and a legislative committee, as well as a period
of public review and comment.
Because the lethal injection protocols -- adopted before the May 1994
execution of John Frederick Thanos -- were not developed in that manner,
"they are legally ineffective," Shaffer found.
"The procedures governing the execution of an inmate are not mere 'routine
management guidelines,'" the judge wrote. "Rather, they detail the minute
steps and delicate procedures that a successful execution requires. ...
The protocols, when viewed as a coherent whole, address ... the awesome
task of carrying out a sentence of death."
Saar, who is named as a defendant in Evans' state and federal lethal
injection lawsuits, has until Monday to decide what to do with Shaffer's
proposed ruling.
Mark A. Vernarelli, a spokesman for the public safety department, said
Saar "will base her decision on advice from her legal experts," noting
that all the issues raised in Evans' inmate grievance are pending either
in appeals heard in May before Maryland's highest court or in a federal
civil lawsuit scheduled for trial in September.
Lawyers for the Division of Correction had argued that the lethal
injection protocols apply to so few people that they do not need to be
adopted under the same public scrutiny afforded more general regulations.
The administrative law judge deemed that argument "unpersuasive."
"The protocols apply to all inmates under a sentence of death. If there
were hundreds under that sentence, the same protocols would apply,"
Shaffer wrote in her decision, issued this month.
She added, "Ensuring that the State complies with the Constitution is an
interest in which all Maryland citizens have a stake, not just those under
a sentence of death."
Although lawyers for Evans, 56, say they are not optimistic that Saar wil
side with them, others said any Cabinet-level secretary would have to give
weighty consideration to this kind of a finding from an administrative
judge.
"I don't think you can just assume that Saar will disagree," said Stephen
H. Sachs, a former U.S. attorney and Maryland attorney general. "I think
she'll have to give some weight to the reasoning behind the decision.
Sachs works for the same Washington law firm representing Evans in some of
his appeals, but he has not handled that case.
Should Saar decide to reverse the proposed ruling, Evans' lawyers could
file an appeal in circuit court.
Yesterday, Evans' attorneys sent the judge's decision to the Court of
Appeals, which halted Evans' scheduled execution in February when the
court agreed to hear four legal challenges, including a claim that the
execution procedures were developed without legally required public input.
Arguments were heard in May, and a decision from the court is pending.
A. Stephen Hut Jr., one of Evans' lawyers, said he hopes that the
administrative law judge's decision will at least strengthen those
arguments.
"The significance here is that our position has been -- and I think the
administrative law judge agrees, to some extent -- that the public comment
process is not an idle requirement," he said.
"Had the secretary put the [lethal injection] proposal out for comment,
she or her predecessor would have heard about the serious problems and
risks with the ... protocols that were adopted and might well have been
led to something different."
As part of her order, the judge also proposed holding an evidentiary
hearing on whether Evans' veins leave him at particular risk of a painful
death because years of heroin abuse have so damaged them that they might
not support the flow of chemicals used in executions.
Evans was sentenced to death in 1992 for the contract killings of David
Scott Piechowicz and his wife's sister, Susan Kennedy. The 2 were gunned
down April 28, 1983, with a submachine pistol at the Pikesville motel
where they worked.
Piechowicz and his wife, Cheryl, had been scheduled to testify in a
federal drug case against a Baltimore drug lord.
Jane Henderson, executive director of Maryland Citizens Against State
Executions, a nonprofit organization that joined Evans' state lethal
injection lawsuit, said the judge's decision should be viewed as a victory
for open government.
"We oppose the death penalty, but our goal in the lawsuit is that open
government is important, and if we're going to execute people, we
shouldn't be doing it under this shroud of secrecy," she said, expressing
concern over the way Maryland's lethal injection procedure was developed.
"It's heartening to have someone say, as a point of law, that you're
right, the Constitution does matter."
(source: The Baltimore Sun)
adopted lethal injection
An administrative law judge has issued a decision in the case of death row
inmate Vernon Lee Evans Jr. that could force Maryland to redevelop its
lethal injection procedures.
The decision stems from an inmate grievance Evans filed -- along with
bringing state and federal lawsuits -- challenging how Maryland carries
out executions and how the procedures were developed.
It is a tentative finding that may be accepted or disregard by Mary Ann
Saar, secretary of the state's Department of Public Safety and
Correctional Services.
Judge Denise Oakes Shaffer found that the execution protocols are state
regulations, which means they must be developed in compliance with
Maryland's Administrative Procedures Act. That requires oversight by the
attorney general's office and a legislative committee, as well as a period
of public review and comment.
Because the lethal injection protocols -- adopted before the May 1994
execution of John Frederick Thanos -- were not developed in that manner,
"they are legally ineffective," Shaffer found.
"The procedures governing the execution of an inmate are not mere 'routine
management guidelines,'" the judge wrote. "Rather, they detail the minute
steps and delicate procedures that a successful execution requires. ...
The protocols, when viewed as a coherent whole, address ... the awesome
task of carrying out a sentence of death."
Saar, who is named as a defendant in Evans' state and federal lethal
injection lawsuits, has until Monday to decide what to do with Shaffer's
proposed ruling.
Mark A. Vernarelli, a spokesman for the public safety department, said
Saar "will base her decision on advice from her legal experts," noting
that all the issues raised in Evans' inmate grievance are pending either
in appeals heard in May before Maryland's highest court or in a federal
civil lawsuit scheduled for trial in September.
Lawyers for the Division of Correction had argued that the lethal
injection protocols apply to so few people that they do not need to be
adopted under the same public scrutiny afforded more general regulations.
The administrative law judge deemed that argument "unpersuasive."
"The protocols apply to all inmates under a sentence of death. If there
were hundreds under that sentence, the same protocols would apply,"
Shaffer wrote in her decision, issued this month.
She added, "Ensuring that the State complies with the Constitution is an
interest in which all Maryland citizens have a stake, not just those under
a sentence of death."
Although lawyers for Evans, 56, say they are not optimistic that Saar wil
side with them, others said any Cabinet-level secretary would have to give
weighty consideration to this kind of a finding from an administrative
judge.
"I don't think you can just assume that Saar will disagree," said Stephen
H. Sachs, a former U.S. attorney and Maryland attorney general. "I think
she'll have to give some weight to the reasoning behind the decision.
Sachs works for the same Washington law firm representing Evans in some of
his appeals, but he has not handled that case.
Should Saar decide to reverse the proposed ruling, Evans' lawyers could
file an appeal in circuit court.
Yesterday, Evans' attorneys sent the judge's decision to the Court of
Appeals, which halted Evans' scheduled execution in February when the
court agreed to hear four legal challenges, including a claim that the
execution procedures were developed without legally required public input.
Arguments were heard in May, and a decision from the court is pending.
A. Stephen Hut Jr., one of Evans' lawyers, said he hopes that the
administrative law judge's decision will at least strengthen those
arguments.
"The significance here is that our position has been -- and I think the
administrative law judge agrees, to some extent -- that the public comment
process is not an idle requirement," he said.
"Had the secretary put the [lethal injection] proposal out for comment,
she or her predecessor would have heard about the serious problems and
risks with the ... protocols that were adopted and might well have been
led to something different."
As part of her order, the judge also proposed holding an evidentiary
hearing on whether Evans' veins leave him at particular risk of a painful
death because years of heroin abuse have so damaged them that they might
not support the flow of chemicals used in executions.
Evans was sentenced to death in 1992 for the contract killings of David
Scott Piechowicz and his wife's sister, Susan Kennedy. The 2 were gunned
down April 28, 1983, with a submachine pistol at the Pikesville motel
where they worked.
Piechowicz and his wife, Cheryl, had been scheduled to testify in a
federal drug case against a Baltimore drug lord.
Jane Henderson, executive director of Maryland Citizens Against State
Executions, a nonprofit organization that joined Evans' state lethal
injection lawsuit, said the judge's decision should be viewed as a victory
for open government.
"We oppose the death penalty, but our goal in the lawsuit is that open
government is important, and if we're going to execute people, we
shouldn't be doing it under this shroud of secrecy," she said, expressing
concern over the way Maryland's lethal injection procedure was developed.
"It's heartening to have someone say, as a point of law, that you're
right, the Constitution does matter."
(source: The Baltimore Sun)
