Death Row con gets a stay against 2nd execution try. Why?
An Ohio prisoner whose execution was halted after two hours…because technicians were unable to find a usable vein that could be injected with lethal drugs won a stay Friday against another attempt to put him to death next week.
The stay, issued by Judge Gregory L. Frost of the Federal District Court in Columbus, expires on Sept. 28.
A hearing on a further stay has been scheduled for that day, but the one that Judge Frost granted Friday could mean a substantial delay at the very least. Defense lawyers and the office of Gov. Ted Strickland said Ohio required that a new execution date be approved by the State Supreme Court once a stay of execution is issued, whether by the state courts or the federal.
That process, said lawyers for the condemned prisoner, Romell Broom, 53, is likely to take months…
That was the first time an execution by lethal injection in the United States had failed and been rescheduled for another day.
The effort to execute Mr. Broom, convicted of the rape, abduction and murder of a 14-year-old girl, has drawn wide attention to Ohio’s death chamber…
“The problem is there’s no Plan B,” said Dr. Groner, an outspoken opponent of the death penalty. “They have a group of individuals who have a certain skill set for inserting IVs. It’s a very low skill level, and some of the inmates are extremely challenging.”
I admit I’m as self-contradicting as any other thoughtful American. On one hand, mandatory appeals which our legal system mandates means that any death penalty takes decades to happen. Broom has been on Death Row for 25 years. Convicted murderers sentenced to life without parole cost the state less in time and money.
On the other hand, if we’re going to continue to have a death penalty, make real technology available to a reasonable defense – and then cut the crap of frivolous appeals. We haven’t a Plan B to substitute for the drugs cocktail? Roll out the guillotine.
Bessye Middleton in Ohio has been waiting those 25 years for the execution ordered by the court that found Broom guilty of her daughter’s rape and murder. Her name isn’t even mentioned in the Times’ article. It’s all about the “anguish” of the man who’s been found guilty of the crime.
There’s a certain existential calculation that has to be balanced here. If you do the crime, you do the time. If it is supposed to be the end of time – make it short.
If you can’t find a freaking vein, take him outside and shoot him in the neck.
Jägermeister
September 20, 2009 at 7:27 pm
I can’t really have an opinion about this particular venue of horror.
I come from one of those places in the world where we outlawed institutional homicide as too brutally uncivilized for most of us to stomach anymore, a lifetime ago.
We’d rather torture thousands of guilty people in jail for the rest of their lives than murder one innocent person.
Cinaedh
September 21, 2009 at 7:17 am
Kumbaya…
Jägermeister
September 21, 2009 at 10:10 am
I understand where you are coming from. I don’t wholeheartedly agree, yet in such horrendous cases find it difficult to argue.
I am more concerned that the appeal process be meaningful. As it is now, someone convicted must produce a significant error or new evidence to gain a new trial. Add to that Prosecutors are more interested in wins than justice. As are too many police.
While this man may deserve to die, let’s focus on those behind bars that don’t belong there.
Mr. Fusion
September 21, 2009 at 8:18 am
The main problem with cutting those “frivolous” appeals short is this: on the mandatory direct appeal (which the states themselves required before the U.S. Supreme Court), courts cannot even consider whether the defendant had inadequate counsel at trial. Inadequate defense counsel is a violation of that pesky Sixth Amendment, a right we should all be concerned about, given many states’ tendency to convict innocent people. Because state judges often don’t even glance at state habeas petitions (let alone consider them on the merits), the second round of “frivolous” appeals is almost completely meaningless. Only federal habeas petitions, in which a judge appointed by a president and his or her esteemed clerk actually read the briefs, are likely to result in justice being served. Habeas petitions in death cases simply must reach federal judges, or we will continue to execute innocent people, like Cameron Todd Willingham. So long as we continue to have the death penalty, we must uphold this obligation.
As for the method of execution, a firing squad might be better than the current three-drug lethal injection cocktail, which paralyzes inmates, allowing them to suffer mercilessly while excruciating drugs stop their breathing and heart.
Rob
September 21, 2009 at 11:17 am
So, Rob – I doubt if anyone commenting here (so far) disagrees with the legal points you’ve raised – do you really think every appeal this dude raised over 25 years was cogent and non-frivolous. Or was it mostly designed to keep him alive, avoiding the sentence he received for rape and murder.
We all know our jurisprudence is better at keeping judges and lawyers employed than anything else. Some of this crap is simply inexcusable.
god
September 21, 2009 at 12:03 pm
I certainly can’t speak for his attorneys, and I haven’t read all his petitions, but I do know that his attorneys and every attorney who represents a criminal defendant in this country has a legal and ethical obligation to defend their clients to the best of their ability. Put yourself in the shoes of the defense attorney for a moment. If your client said he was innocent and you didn’t believe him, and you failed to raise certain issues because you thought your client deserved a harsh sentence, could you live with yourself if you later discovered your client was innocent? Prosecutors in every state do everything in their power — and they have A LOT of power — to make sure violent offenders get punished to the fullest extent of the law. Defense attorneys are most often the only check on a system that is heavily slanted toward conviction and long sentences, including life w/o parole and death. I see defense attorneys and appellate lawyers as upholders of our constitutional rights. Without them, we are at the government’s whim. And believe me, the “frivolous” arguments — along with some good ones — definitely get tossed to the curb by virtually every judge. For example, in “liberal” California, the California Supreme Court affirms 96% of death sentences at the state habeas level. In places like Texas and Virginia, the numbers are even more slanted toward the prosecution.
Rob
September 21, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Theory vs. practice, bro’.
One of the interviews I read with Broom’s attorney noted he even apologized for some of the sleazy tactics he tried in his appeals – trying the victim instead of the defendant because she was apparently a “sexually active” 15-yr-old.
That sort of rape defense stinks out loud. It has nothing to do with NO meaning NO!
god
September 21, 2009 at 12:35 pm
If we start deciding ahead of time the appeals are frivolous, then every appeal becomes frivolous whether it is actually valid or not.
If you have ever hired someone and had to wade through a pile of resumes, pretty soon you get a quick grasp of what is frivolous. And as much as it is your job to filter through those resumes, so it is also the Appeals Court’s job to consider each appeal seriously.
That the Appeals courts have put such a high standard upon what qualifies for a new trial is the really sad part. Yes, occasionally there is a case that almost automatically garners a new trial. They, however, are truly few and far between.
Mr. Fusion
September 21, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Judges are required to decide if cases before them are frivolous or not all the time.
The most recent best example is that right-wing dimwit who started the whole “birther” crap. The judge even ruled he would bring her back to court under a contempt ruling if she filed suit yet again.
In Broom’s case, the courts – and most state laws – have long ago ruled that trying the victim in a rape case as having loose morals is inadmissable procedure – still, Broom’s attorney used that as grounds for one of his appeals.
god
September 22, 2009 at 7:10 am