Oh I Can See This Heading For The Supreme Court AGAIN
And I thought you guy's were finally on a roll here...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SAN FRANCISCO — State officials on Tuesday postponed indefinitely the execution of condemned killer Michael Morales, saying they would be unable to comply with a judge's order that a medical professional administer the lethal injection.
Prison officials called off the execution of Morales, 46, after failing to find a doctor, nurse, or other properly licensed person to deliver a lethal dose of barbiturate, said Vernell Crittendon, a spokesman for San Quentin State Prison.
"I'm totally disillusioned with the justice system. We've been waiting 25 years with the expectancy that he is gonna pay for his crimes. It feels like we just got punched in the stomach."
Barbara Christian, Terri Winchell's mother"We are unable to have a licensed medical professional come forward to inject the medication intraveneously, causing the life to end," he said.
That mode of execution, not used any other state, was settled on by prison officials after plans to kill Morales using a three-drug cocktail were delayed when two anesthesiologists refused to participate on ethical grounds.
Morales was initially scheduled to die at 12:01 a.m. Tuesday for torturing, raping and murdering 17-year-old Terri Winchell of Lodi 25 years ago.
The anesthesiologists were brought in because of a ruling last week by a federal judge considering whether the state's injection protocol might be unconstitutionally cruel and unusual. The doctors backed out after learning they might have to advise the executioner if the inmate woke up or appeared to suffer pain.
Prison officials then rescheduled the execution for Tuesday night, planning to skip the usual paralyzing and heart-stopping drugs and kill him with an overdose of a sedative.
U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel approved that plan Tuesday afternoon, but said the sedative must be administered in the execution chamber by a person who is licensed by the state to inject medications intravenously, a group that includes doctors, nurses, dentists and other medical technicians.
Morales' lawyers said they would appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but the state notified the court late Tuesday afternoon that it did not intend to go forward with the execution, said Cathy Catterson, a clerk for the 9th Circuit.
Likely won't happen for months
It wasn't immediately clear when the execution would be carried out, but it isn't likely to happen for months because of consitutional questions surrounding the mode of lethal injection in California.
Crittendon said Morales, who had spent the day in the "death watch" cell, was relieved to learn of the postponement.
"He smiled," Crittendon said. "He nodded. He thanked me."
The victim's mother, Barbara Christian, however, was outraged by the decision.
"I'm totally disillusioned with the justice system. We've been waiting 25 years with the expectancy that he is gonna pay for his crimes," she said. "It feels like we just got punched in the stomach."
One of Morales' attorneys, Ben Weston, said the decision "goes a long way toward demonstrating the state doesn't have its ducks in a row for humanely killing a human being. They haven't figured out how to do it."
Morales was sentenced to death in 1983 for killing Winchell by attacking her with a hammer, stabbing her, and leaving her to die half-naked in a vineyard. Morales plotted the killing with a gay cousin who was jealous of Winchell's relationship with the cousin's male lover. The cousin, Ricky Ortega, now 44, was sentenced to life in prison without parole.
The case has renewed a legal and ethical debate that has persisted for many years about the proper role of doctors in executions and the suitability of the lethal injection method used in California and 36 other states.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld executions in general despite the pain they might cause inmates, but has never directly addressed whether lethal injections are constitutional.
Morales' attorneys argued that the three-part lethal injection violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The attorneys said a prisoner could feel excruciating pain from the last two chemicals if he were not fully sedated.
Fogel, in a ruling last week, gave prison officials a choice: bring in doctors to ensure Morales was properly anesthetized, or skip the usual paralyzing and heart-stopping drugs and execute him with an overdose of a sedative.
The American Medical Association, the American Society of Anesthesiologists and the California Medical Association all opposed the anesthesiologists' participation as unethical and unprofessional.
The anesthesiologists ultimately withdrew after the judge wrote that they might have to demand that the executioner administer more sedatives through a separate intravenous line to make sure the prisoner is unconscious.
"Any such intervention would clearly be medically unethical," the doctors, whose identities were not released, said in a statement Tuesday. "As a result, we have withdrawn from participation in this current process."
The anesthesiologists would have joined another doctor who is on duty at all California executions to declare the prisoner dead and ensure proper medical procedures are followed. But the doctor does not insert any of the intravenous lines and is not in the room during the execution itself.
In the past, the intravenous lines have been inserted by prison staff, and then the drugs were added by a machine.
Because the execution was not carried out before the 24-hour warrant expired at 11:59 p.m., state officials will have to go back to the trial judge who imposed the death sentence in 1983 for another warrant.
In the meantime, Fogel is expected to hold a series of hearings in the spring on whether the original three-drug method, as performed without anesthesiologists, amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. His ruling last week promised the hearings as an alternative if the state couldn't abide by either of the two options for putting Morales to death.
The state uses the three-drug method, instead of just injecting a sedative, because it takes about 10 minutes to kill somebody compared to 30 minutes or more. Thirty-seven states use either two or three drugs to carry out executions by lethal injection.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who twice denied Morales' bid for clemency, criticized the federal courts for becoming entwined in "the details of the state's execution process."
"I am confident that the convictions and sentence were appropriate in this case," he said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They couldnt find a Doctor anywhere in the entire state of California to administer the drugs? What's cruel and unusual punishment is raping, torturing, and beating a 17 year old girl to death 39 times with a hammer!!!
The killer's lawyer said: "They havent figured out how to do it?"
That's because they dont do it often enough!!
God I'm glad I left California long ago.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SAN FRANCISCO — State officials on Tuesday postponed indefinitely the execution of condemned killer Michael Morales, saying they would be unable to comply with a judge's order that a medical professional administer the lethal injection.
Prison officials called off the execution of Morales, 46, after failing to find a doctor, nurse, or other properly licensed person to deliver a lethal dose of barbiturate, said Vernell Crittendon, a spokesman for San Quentin State Prison.
"I'm totally disillusioned with the justice system. We've been waiting 25 years with the expectancy that he is gonna pay for his crimes. It feels like we just got punched in the stomach."
Barbara Christian, Terri Winchell's mother"We are unable to have a licensed medical professional come forward to inject the medication intraveneously, causing the life to end," he said.
That mode of execution, not used any other state, was settled on by prison officials after plans to kill Morales using a three-drug cocktail were delayed when two anesthesiologists refused to participate on ethical grounds.
Morales was initially scheduled to die at 12:01 a.m. Tuesday for torturing, raping and murdering 17-year-old Terri Winchell of Lodi 25 years ago.
The anesthesiologists were brought in because of a ruling last week by a federal judge considering whether the state's injection protocol might be unconstitutionally cruel and unusual. The doctors backed out after learning they might have to advise the executioner if the inmate woke up or appeared to suffer pain.
Prison officials then rescheduled the execution for Tuesday night, planning to skip the usual paralyzing and heart-stopping drugs and kill him with an overdose of a sedative.
U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel approved that plan Tuesday afternoon, but said the sedative must be administered in the execution chamber by a person who is licensed by the state to inject medications intravenously, a group that includes doctors, nurses, dentists and other medical technicians.
Morales' lawyers said they would appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but the state notified the court late Tuesday afternoon that it did not intend to go forward with the execution, said Cathy Catterson, a clerk for the 9th Circuit.
Likely won't happen for months
It wasn't immediately clear when the execution would be carried out, but it isn't likely to happen for months because of consitutional questions surrounding the mode of lethal injection in California.
Crittendon said Morales, who had spent the day in the "death watch" cell, was relieved to learn of the postponement.
"He smiled," Crittendon said. "He nodded. He thanked me."
The victim's mother, Barbara Christian, however, was outraged by the decision.
"I'm totally disillusioned with the justice system. We've been waiting 25 years with the expectancy that he is gonna pay for his crimes," she said. "It feels like we just got punched in the stomach."
One of Morales' attorneys, Ben Weston, said the decision "goes a long way toward demonstrating the state doesn't have its ducks in a row for humanely killing a human being. They haven't figured out how to do it."
Morales was sentenced to death in 1983 for killing Winchell by attacking her with a hammer, stabbing her, and leaving her to die half-naked in a vineyard. Morales plotted the killing with a gay cousin who was jealous of Winchell's relationship with the cousin's male lover. The cousin, Ricky Ortega, now 44, was sentenced to life in prison without parole.
The case has renewed a legal and ethical debate that has persisted for many years about the proper role of doctors in executions and the suitability of the lethal injection method used in California and 36 other states.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld executions in general despite the pain they might cause inmates, but has never directly addressed whether lethal injections are constitutional.
Morales' attorneys argued that the three-part lethal injection violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The attorneys said a prisoner could feel excruciating pain from the last two chemicals if he were not fully sedated.
Fogel, in a ruling last week, gave prison officials a choice: bring in doctors to ensure Morales was properly anesthetized, or skip the usual paralyzing and heart-stopping drugs and execute him with an overdose of a sedative.
The American Medical Association, the American Society of Anesthesiologists and the California Medical Association all opposed the anesthesiologists' participation as unethical and unprofessional.
The anesthesiologists ultimately withdrew after the judge wrote that they might have to demand that the executioner administer more sedatives through a separate intravenous line to make sure the prisoner is unconscious.
"Any such intervention would clearly be medically unethical," the doctors, whose identities were not released, said in a statement Tuesday. "As a result, we have withdrawn from participation in this current process."
The anesthesiologists would have joined another doctor who is on duty at all California executions to declare the prisoner dead and ensure proper medical procedures are followed. But the doctor does not insert any of the intravenous lines and is not in the room during the execution itself.
In the past, the intravenous lines have been inserted by prison staff, and then the drugs were added by a machine.
Because the execution was not carried out before the 24-hour warrant expired at 11:59 p.m., state officials will have to go back to the trial judge who imposed the death sentence in 1983 for another warrant.
In the meantime, Fogel is expected to hold a series of hearings in the spring on whether the original three-drug method, as performed without anesthesiologists, amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. His ruling last week promised the hearings as an alternative if the state couldn't abide by either of the two options for putting Morales to death.
The state uses the three-drug method, instead of just injecting a sedative, because it takes about 10 minutes to kill somebody compared to 30 minutes or more. Thirty-seven states use either two or three drugs to carry out executions by lethal injection.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who twice denied Morales' bid for clemency, criticized the federal courts for becoming entwined in "the details of the state's execution process."
"I am confident that the convictions and sentence were appropriate in this case," he said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They couldnt find a Doctor anywhere in the entire state of California to administer the drugs? What's cruel and unusual punishment is raping, torturing, and beating a 17 year old girl to death 39 times with a hammer!!!
The killer's lawyer said: "They havent figured out how to do it?"
That's because they dont do it often enough!!
God I'm glad I left California long ago.
posted by Marie's Two Cents | 1:58 AM
3 Comments:
I say we release Mr. Morales on parole pending appeal. To Judge Fogel's custody. At his house.
That would teach him Uncle, and the Dr.'s that walked out on the whole thing. California has turned into a miserable mess.
Bob, that is the funniest page I have seen in a long time.
Post a Comment
<< Home