- Reginald Fields has this article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, entitled "Lethal injection challenge dismissed; Court says suit not filed in time."
- The Columbus Dispatch has this article, entitled "Court rejects challenge against lethal injection; Inmate suit tossed on procedural grounds."
- Jim Provance has this article in the Toledo Blade, entitled "Inmates lose lethal-injection ruling: Ohio death-row challenge too late, panel says."
- Dan Horn has this coverage in the Cincinnati Enquirer, entitled "Lethal injection challenge fails
- John McCarthy has this AP coverage, entitled "Inmate to challenge ruling in challenge of execution method."."
Plain Dealer excerpts:
A federal court has thrown out a lawsuit brought by nine death row inmates challenging Ohio's lethal injection process, saying the prisoners did not file it within a required time period.
The ruling from a split three-judge panel at the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, however, does not address the central issue behind the suit: whether Ohio's method of execution is a humane way to die or tantamount to death by torture.
And the ruling does not stop other inmates from filing the exact same suit, which could still force a legal battle over the constitutionality of Ohio's execution process.
"If this decision stands, eight of these nine inmates may die because of a technicality," said Greg Meyers, chief counsel for the Ohio public defender's office.
Ultimately, he said, an eligible inmate will bring a lawsuit and "hold Ohio's feet to the fire as to whether lethal injection really is a machinery of death."
Meyers represents death row inmate Richard Cooey, who has been on death row for 20 years for the murders of two University of Akron students and initiated the lawsuit in 2004. Meyers argued that the clock should start once a last-ditch federal appeal, which comes after the state appeals process, has been lost and a firm execution date is set.
"Otherwise, this ruling forces you to challenge the way you are going to die before you know for sure that you are going to die," Meyers argues.
...The Ohio attorney general's office, which came out the winner in Friday's ruling, said it has never shied from debating lethal injection and suspects that court battle is still coming.
Attorney General Marc Dann "believes the constitutionality of lethal injection should be vetted in an appropriate lawsuit," said Jim Canepa, chief of capital crimes for the attorney general.
The ruling says that the two-year statute of limitations for inmates filing such lawsuits begins after a condemned prisoner loses a state Supreme Court direct appeal of his death sentence.
The state had argued the two-year window could begin at that point, or even earlier when the trial court hands down the death sentence designating lethal injection as the method.
"It just makes sense," said Canepa, adding that two years seems enough time for inmates to complain since they know at the start how they will die, rather than waiting years later when death is imminent.
...Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland has said he is aware of the Cooey lawsuit and concerned that Ohio's procedure could eventually be deemed unconstitutional. While he offered a reprieve to three condemned men to take more time to study whether they were worthy of clemency, the governor has not called for a moratorium.
In Friday's 2-to-1 decision, the judicial panel said a U.S. District Court judge erred when he allowed the case to proceed. It sent the case back to the District Court and ordered it dismissed.
Meyers said he will ask for the full circuit court, about 15 judges, to review the decision. If that fails, he will appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Cooey and the other eight inmates who had won stays of their executions will not have their death sentences carried out while the case is pending, said Canepa.
But if the appeals court ruling stands, Cooey and seven others would be out of options.
The ninth inmate in that lawsuit, child killer Nicole Diar, sent to death row in 2005 from Lorain County, joined the Cooey lawsuit even before her state appeal was decided. That means she would still be eligible to bring a future lawsuit. ...full article
Comments