Broom v. Ohio
On September 15th, 2009, Ohio's botched it's execution-attempt of Romell Broom. According to the Associated Press, the correctional officers encountered so much difficulty in finding a suitable vein for the lethal injection (Broom had previously been a drug addict) that, after an hour, Broom attempted to assist them by moving on his side, sliding the rubber tubing up and down his arm, and flexing his fingers. A vein was found, but it collapsed as the technicians inserted a saline solution. Broom’s assistance did not help, and he turned on his back and covered his face with both hands. He appeared to be in distress and wiped his eyes. The executioners attempted to use the veins in his legs and all he could do was grimace. Finally, the executions gave up their attempts, indicating they needed a break. During the execution, one of Broom’s lawyers , Tim Sweeney, wrote Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer asking him to end the procedure. "Any further attempts today to carry out the execution of Mr. Broom would be cruel and unusual punishment in violation of . . . the U.S. Constitution," he wrote. "They would also violate Ohio's statutory requirement that a lethal injection execution is to be quick and painless." During the process, Broom requested that another one of his lawyers, Adele Shank, come to the witness room. She witnessed Broom wince in pain several times. “It was obviously a flawed process," she said. After 2 hours, Prison Director Terry Collins contacted Governor Ted Strickland who issued the last minute reprieve. "Difficulties in administering the execution protocol necessitate a temporary reprieve," said Strickland's Warrant of Reprieve, filed in court Tuesday afternoon. The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio asked state officials to immediately halt executions. "Ohio's execution system is fundamentally flawed. If the state is going to take a person's life, they must ensure that it is done as humanely as possible," ACLU counsel Carrie Davis said. "With three botched executions in as many years, it's clear that the state must stop and review the system entirely before another person is put to death." |
Willingham v. Texas
Convicted 1992 Executed: 2004 After examining evidence from the capital prosecution of Cameron Willingham, four national arson experts concluded that the original investigation of Willingham's case was flawed, and it was possible the fire was accidental. The independent investigation, reported by the Chicago Tribune, found that prosecutors and arson investigators used arson theories that have since been repudiated by scientific advances. Willingham was executed in 2004 in Texas despite his constant claims of innocence. He was convicted of murdering his three children in a 1991 house fire. Willingham was convicted of murder after investigators concluded that 20 indicators of arson led them to believe that an accelerent had been used. Some of the jurors who convicted Willingham were troubled when told of the new case review. Juror Dorinda Brokofsky asked, "Did anybody know about this prior to his execution? Now I will have to live with this for the rest of my life. Maybe this man was innocent." Prior to the execution, Willingham's defense attorneys presented expert testimony regarding the new arson investigation to the state's highest court, as well as to Texas Governor Rick Perry. No relief was granted and Willingham was executed on February 17, 2004. Coincidentally, less than a year after Willingham's execution, arson evidence presented by some of the same experts who had appealed for relief in Willingham's case helped free Ernest Willis from Texas's death row. The experts noted that the evidence in the Willingham case was nearly identical to the evidence used to exonerate Willis who set three separate fires inside his home. |
Furman v. Georgia
US Supreme Court, 408 U.S. 238 June 29, 1972 William Henry Furman was dicovered burglarizing a home. While he was escaping, his weapon (a gun) went off and killed a resident in the house. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The case dealt with the constitutionality of the death penalty murder convictions. Henry Furman claimed his sentencing to death would violate his rights of the 8th amendment. He also claimed he wouldn't be allowed to pursue his Unailiable Rights; life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court held the imposition that the death penalty in this case would be classified as cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution. They overturned Furman's execution. This led to the death penalty being illegal within the United States until 1976, when it was re- instituted. |