Post by Anja Nieser on Sept 20, 2006 15:20:01 GMT -5
Judge Discusses Goals For Hearing On Executions
The federal judge who effectively halted executions in California earlier
this year laid out his goals Wednesday for a 4-day hearing later this
month on the constitutionality of the state's death penalty procedure.
U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel told attorneys representing
condemned inmate Michael Morales and the State of California that at the
conclusion of the hearing he hopes to determine whether "there is or there
is not a constitutional means of carrying out an execution in the State of
California."
In February, the scheduled execution of Morales, and effectively all other
executions in California, was postponed indefinitely after state prison
officials were unable to comply with Fogel's order that a "qualified
individual" licensed by the state to administer drugs intravenously be
present in the execution chamber during the execution and participate in
the lethal injection procedure. All of the "qualified individuals," prison
officials approached refused to participate in the execution on ethical
grounds.
Attorneys for Morales have argued that California's lethal injection
procedure is unconstitutional because there is a possibility that the
condemned prisoner may experience excruciating pain, in violation of the
Eighth Amendment prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment," as
the lethal drugs are being administered.
In March, Fogel spent several hours touring California's execution chamber
at San Quentin State Prison and hearing testimony from members of the
execution team. At the 4-day hearing scheduled to begin on Sept. 26 he
will hear from experts from both sides about the California execution
procedure.
(source: KTVU)
The federal judge who effectively halted executions in California earlier
this year laid out his goals Wednesday for a 4-day hearing later this
month on the constitutionality of the state's death penalty procedure.
U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel told attorneys representing
condemned inmate Michael Morales and the State of California that at the
conclusion of the hearing he hopes to determine whether "there is or there
is not a constitutional means of carrying out an execution in the State of
California."
In February, the scheduled execution of Morales, and effectively all other
executions in California, was postponed indefinitely after state prison
officials were unable to comply with Fogel's order that a "qualified
individual" licensed by the state to administer drugs intravenously be
present in the execution chamber during the execution and participate in
the lethal injection procedure. All of the "qualified individuals," prison
officials approached refused to participate in the execution on ethical
grounds.
Attorneys for Morales have argued that California's lethal injection
procedure is unconstitutional because there is a possibility that the
condemned prisoner may experience excruciating pain, in violation of the
Eighth Amendment prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment," as
the lethal drugs are being administered.
In March, Fogel spent several hours touring California's execution chamber
at San Quentin State Prison and hearing testimony from members of the
execution team. At the 4-day hearing scheduled to begin on Sept. 26 he
will hear from experts from both sides about the California execution
procedure.
(source: KTVU)