UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JESSIE HOFFMAN : CIVIL ACTION : NUMBER: 12-cv-0796 : JUDGE JAMES J. BRADY VERSUS BURL CAIN, ET AL : MAGISTRATE JUDGE STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER ************************************************************************ SECOND MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT: A. BACKGROUND Intervenor, Christopher Sepulvado (hereinafter "Intervenor" or "Sepulvado"), has asked this Court to stay his February 13, 2013 execution. For the reasons below he does not meet the requirements for a preliminary injunction to stay his execution. As noted in an earlier brief filed by Defendants, Intervenor's first-degree murder conviction was affirmed by the Louisiana Supreme Court on April 8, 1996. State v. Sepulvado, 93-2682 (La. 4/8/96), 672 So.2d 158, rehearing denied, (La. 5/10/96). His petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court was denied on October 15, 1996. Sepulvado v. Louisiana, 519 U.S. 934, 117 S.Ct. 310 (1996). His petition for rehearing was likewise denied. Sepulvado v. Louisiana, 519 U.S. 1035, 117 S.Ct. 600 (1996). His conviction and sentence to death have been final for over sixteen years now. More than one month after the district judge signed his death warrant on December 12, 2012, Intervenor filed his Motion to Intervene in this case, on January 23, 2013. And eight days later, on January 31, 2013, a mere fourteen days before his execution, Intervenor for the first 1 Case 3:12-cv-00796-JJB-SCR Document 23 02/06/13 Page 1 of 10 time asked this court to stay his execution to review the legality of the State's execution protocols via a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. In his Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Intervenor argues that he cannot be executed under the last known protocol as it requires a drug - sodium thiopental - which was taken off the market, and requiring Intervenor to be executed with this drug would violate the Eighth Amendment. Alternatively, Intervenor claims that the State has no protocol. Intervenor is incorrect on both accounts. B. LAW AND ARGUMENT 1. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STANDARD. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm until the respective rights of the parties can be ascertained during a trial on the merits. Exhibitors Posters Exchange, Inc. v. National Screen Service Corp., 441 F.2d 560 (5th Cir. 1971). A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy which should not be granted unless the movant clearly carries the burden of persuasion. Canal Authority of State of Florida v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 573 (5th Cir. 1974); Anderson v. Jackson, 556 F.3d 351, 360 (5th Cir. 2009). The four elements that the movant must satisfy before injunctive relief can be granted are (1) substantial likelihood that the movant will prevail on the merits; (2) substantial threat that irreparable harm will result if the injunction is not granted; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm to the defendant; and (4) the granting of the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest. Clark v. Prichard, 812 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1987.) The party seeking such relief must satisfy a cumulative burden of proving each of the four elements enumerated before a preliminary injunction can be granted. Id. a. Preliminary Objection. 2 Case 3:12-cv-00796-JJB-SCR Document 23 02/06/13 Page 2 of 10 The State has already disclosed its drug protocol - 1 dose of pentobarbital. This also negates his second argument that the State will execute via a protocol where one drug is unobtainable. Now that his original complains have failed, Intervenor manufacturers a new and wholly unsupported criticism - that the drug may have been obtained from illegal means, as the manufacturer of pentobarbital does not want its drug to be used in executions. This argument should be rejected as not included in his complaint or motion for preliminary injunction. Furthermore, DPSC procured it through lawful means and did not go out of country to get it. Finally, the fact that a manufacturer may have a problem with the State of Louisiana executing an individual for committing an especially heinous crime against a seven-year old defenseless child is completely irrelevant for the purpose of an Eighth Amendment challenge. b. Intervenor Can Show No Likelihood of Success on the Merits. The seminar case from the United States Supreme Court regarding cruel and unusual death sentences is Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 128 S. Ct. 1520, 170 L. Ed. 2d 420 (2008). It is well-settled that capital punishment is constitutional. Baze, at 47. Because some risk of pain is inherent in even the most humane execution method, if only from the prospect of error in following the required procedure, the Constitution does not demand the avoidance of all risk of pain. Baze, at 47. To constitute cruel and unusual punishment, an execution method must present a "substantial" or "objectively intolerable" degree of serious harm. Baze, at 35-36. Simply because an execution method may result in pain, either by accident or as an inescapable consequence of death, does not establish the sort of "objectively intolerable risk of harm" that qualifies as cruel and unusual. Baze, at 50. Furthermore, allowing a condemned prisoner to challenge a State's execution method merely by sowing a slightly or marginally safer alternative finds no support in the Supreme 3 Case 3:12-cv-00796-JJB-SCR Document 23 02/06/13 Page 3 of 10 Court's cases. Baze, at 51. The Supreme Court does not allow courts to turn into boards of inquiry based on "best practices" for executions. Baze, at 15. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has never invalidated a State's chosen procedure for carrying out a death sentence as cruel and unusual. Baze, at 48. I. Inmates have argued that one-drug executions are safer method as opposed to the previously used three drug combination. It is undisputed that the three-drug protocol utilized previously by Louisiana is substantially the same as that declared constitutional in Baze. Nor has Intervenor alleged otherwise. His argument to this court is simply that the three-drug protocol in absence of the availability of the first would be unconstitutional. Defendants do not address this argument, as it is moot. Louisiana's current drug of choice is one-dose of pentobarbital. Ironically, and fatal to Intervenor's argument, is that inmates on death row have routinely argued that a one-drug combination is more humane than the three-drug combination rule constitutional in Baze. In fact the inmates in Baze made this exact argument: "Much of petitioners' case rests on the contention that they have identified a significant risk of harm that can be eliminated by adopting alternative procedures, such as a onedrug protocol that dispenses with the use of pancuronium and potassium chloride" Baze, at 51, and "First, petitioners contend that Kentucky could switch from a three-drug protocol to a one-drug protocol by using a single dose of sodium thiopental or other barbiturate [such as pentobarbital]." Baze, at 56. Numerous death penalty inmates in Idaho, Florida, and Tennessee also argued for a one-drug combination instead of a three-drug one. See, Roades v. Reinke, 671 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 11/16/11); Roades v. Reinke, 830 F.Supp.2d 1046 (9th Cir. 11/14/11); Creech v. Reinke, 2012 WL 1995085 (D. Idaho 6/5/12); Pardo v. Palmer, 2012 WL 6106331 (12/10/12); and Harbison v. Little, 571 F.3d 531 (6th Cir. 2009). See also, Cooey v. Strickland, 589 F.3d 210, 222 (6th Cir. 4 Case 3:12-cv-00796-JJB-SCR Document 23 02/06/13 Page 4 of 10 12/7/09) ("By adopting a one-drug injection, Ohio purposely ceased using the pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride that had been the focus of previous Eighth Amendment challenges to lethal injection protocols.") Now that Louisiana has chosen what death row advocates contend is a more humane method than that previously ruled constitutionally-sound, Intervenor still complains. II. The use of a one-drug protocol has been declared constitutional by other courts. Louisiana is far from the only state to use the one-drug pentobarbital. Six states have used a single-drug method of execution - Arizona, Idaho, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington. Four states including Louisiana have announced plans to carry out one-drug pentobarbital executions in the future. See, website from www.deathpenaltyinfo.org. Coincidentally, the one-drug protocol in Ohio, California, and Arizona were all ruled constitutional. Towery v. Brewer, 5672 F.3d 650 (9th Cir. 2/28/12) (Arizona); Morales v. Tilton, 465 F.Supp.2d 972 (12/15/06) (California); and Cooey v. Strickland, 589 F.3d 210 (6th Cir. 12/7/09) (Ohio). The Ninth Circuit in Towery found the use of one drug in an execution protocol to be constitutional, even despite the fact that the protocol was changed to this method only 48 hours prior to the scheduled execution. This Court in this matter extensively discussed the one drug protocol, stating explicitly that the use of one drug rather than three fully complies with the protocol approved in Baze. Therefore, the Plaintiff's request for temporary injunction was denied. The Sixth Circuit came to the same conclusion in Cooey. In this matter, medical experts explained that the one-drug protocol is in fact a more humane execution procedure. Cooey, at 5 Case 3:12-cv-00796-JJB-SCR Document 23 02/06/13 Page 5 of 10 215.1 The Court recognized that this sentiment was the ongoing demand of litigants since 2004. It went on to state that "a thorough review of the evidence presented regarding the one-drug procedure "reveals that the similarities with Baze are considerable and the risk of severe pain no greater-and likely less- than the risk of pain inherent in any lethal injection procedure found constitutional by a federal court." In fact, in news articles concerning the administration of pentobarbital alone in Texas reported that the offender "showed no apparent unusual reaction to the drug as his execution began." See, attached news articles from BBC News and Death Penalty News. Thus, there is no evidence to suggest that Louisiana's use of a one-drug procedure - pentobarbital - is unconstitutional. III. Courts have upheld on constitutionality grounds the substitution of Pentobarbital for Sodium Thiopental. Courts across the country have refused to declare that a simple replacing one barbiturate for another creates constitutional infirmities. See, West v. Brewer, 2011 WL 6724628 (D. Ariz. 12/21/11); Beaty v. Brewer, 791 F.Supp.2d 678 (D. Ariz. 5/25/11); Powell v. Thomas, 641 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 5/19/11); Pavatt v. Jones, 627 F.3d 1336 (10th Cir. 2010); DeYoung v. Owens, 646 F.3d 1319 (7/20/11); Powell v. Thomas, 643 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 6/15/11); and Jackson v. Danberg, 656 F.3d 157 (3rd Cir. 9/7/11). In fact, the medical evidence supports the conclusion that the one-drug procedure is more humane than the approved-three-drug combination. In Dickens v. Brewer, 2009 WL 1904294 (D. Ariz. 7/1/2009), the court discussed the effects of replacing the three-drug to a one-drug of either pentobarbital or sodium thiopental: 1 The inmate's own medical expect is quote by the court as stating "[I]t was gratifying to see that Ohio has decided to renounce the use of pancuronium and potassium. That really is a big step forward, and its taken many years, but I think they are really to be commended for doing that. 6 Case 3:12-cv-00796-JJB-SCR Document 23 02/06/13 Page 6 of 10 "Replacing the three-drug protocol with a one-drug protocol using pentobarbital or sodium thiopental would eliminate the risk of severe pain from pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride. Five grams of sodium thiopental alone will cause death to almost everyone within a number of minutes, but it may take thirty to forty-five minutes for the death to be indicated by a flat line on an EKG. Pentobarbital acts as rapidly as sodium thiopental, and it is eliminated from the brain more slowly than sodium thiopental and causes death more predictably. When pentobarbital is given intravenously in a large dose (three to four times its anesthetic dose), loss of consciousness, cessation of breathing, and stoppage of the heart occur in less than two minutes." Dickens v. Brewer, 2009 WL 1904294 (D.Ariz. 7/1/09) affirmed, 631 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2011) The Third Circuit in Jackson stated: "Pentobarbital is a barbiturate commonly used to euthanize terminally ill patients who seek death with dignity in states such as Oregon and Washington. It has been used successfully for executions in at least four other states, and there is no evidence that it fails to render an inmate unconscious. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the use of pentobarbital did not create "a demonstrated risk of severe pain, as required by the Supreme Court." Jackson, 656 F.3d at 165. Finally, inmates' own expert in Cooey congratulated Ohio for moving forward to a onedrug combination. Cooey, at 215. IV. Claims of Illegally-Obtained Drugs or Non-Approval by FDA or Condemnation of Use of Drugs in Execution by Manufacturer Has Been Held Insufficient. Intervenor has already told this court that it believes pentobarbital is not appropriate because its manufacturer does not approve it for use. This argument and other similar has been rejected in "method of execution" actions like the current one. The Eleventh Circuit in Valle v. Singer, 655 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 9/7/11) rejected the argument that a manufacturers condemnation of the use of drug in execution has little if any evidentiary weight, as it has no bearing of whether cause the individual being executed needless pain or suffering. Valle, 655 F.3d at 1233-1234. The Eleventh Circuit also noted a number of courts which have rejected claims that drugs not approved by the FDA could not be used in a lethal injection. See, Valle, 7 Case 3:12-cv-00796-JJB-SCR Document 23 02/06/13 Page 7 of 10 655 F.3d at 1234. The District Court of Idaho in Creech, supra, likewise rejected the arugment that illegally-obtained drugs may increase a risk of harm during an execution. Creech, 2012 WL 1995085, * 20-21. V. Courts have likewise rejected claims that states have failed to disclosure their protocols until the last hour. The Fifth Circuit in Walker v. Epps, 550 F.3d 407 (5th Cir. 11/24/08) explicitly rejected the argument that Mississippi's resistance to requests to produce the protocol, disclosure of only portion, and only production of the entity at the summary judgment in this case was not enough to prevent the plaintiff's claim from being declared time-barred. Importantly, the Fifth Circuit noted: We cannot accept that the State fraudulently concealed the plaintiffs' cause of action, given that the plaintiffs were aware that they were subject to execution by lethal injection from the moment their convictions became final. The plaintiffs could have filed their ? 1983 action on the basis of this fact alone, within the limitations period. They did not need the detailed information they allege the State belatedly disclosed to file their action. The plaintiffs have failed to show the State affirmatively acted to conceal their cause of action and, accordingly, the statute was not tolled on the basis of fraudulent concealment. Walker, 550 F.3d at 417. See also, Powell v. Thomas, 641 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 5/19/11) where the court rejected a claim that the plaintiff has an Eighth Amendment right to know the details of his execution. Thus, Intervenor's claim that he does not all of the details is unavailing. c. Intervenor Can Not Show Irreparable Harm. The State does not dispute that if the preliminary injunction is not granted, Intervenor will be executed as scheduled on February 13, 2013. However, that is not enough to declare irreparable harm. The tight time-crunch with which the Court, the State and Intervenor finds themselves currently is solely due to the delay of Intervenor. He can file an action like this any time after his conviction is final, which was in 1996. The death warrant itself reveals an 8 Case 3:12-cv-00796-JJB-SCR Document 23 02/06/13 Page 8 of 10 extensive history of litigation by Intervenor in both state and federal courts. The district court issued the death warrant on December 12, 2012, and yet Intervenor still never filed this action. He waited until January 23, 2013, more than one month after the death warrant was issued. Even then, he did not seek a stay. He waited until 14 days before his execution to do so. A plaintiff cannot be allowed to "create" his own irreparable injury. In fact his own Motion for Preliminary Injunction cuts against him. He asks this Court for a stay because by the time the 21-day period to file an answer will have run, he will be executed. The fact that he will be executed in the meantime is due to his own fault. He should not have waited until the eleventh hour to request a stay. This is simply a last-ditch effort to avoid execution.2 Any irreparable injury is due to his own delay from which he should not be allowed to benefit. d. The Threatened Harm to Intervenor Does Not Outweigh the Harm to the State and the Public Interest Will be Dissuaded. The State has a great interest in ensuring that its criminal laws - designed to protect the public - are swiftly enforced. A further delay in a six-year old case is contrary to the State's interest. Further, the victims of Intervenor's crimes do not deserve the agony of having Intervenor's death warrant recalled once again. The current motion is simply a last effort by Intervenor. 2 It is import to note that Intervenor was previously set to die in 2008 but was granted a stay at that time. This is his second request for a stay. 9 Case 3:12-cv-00796-JJB-SCR Document 23 02/06/13 Page 9 of 10 C. CONCLUSION For this reason, Defendants request this Court deny Intervenor's request for stay. Respectfully Submitted: James D. "Buddy" Caldwell _s/Jacqueline B. Wilson______________________ SHOWS, CALI & WALSH, L.L.P. E. Wade Shows, LA Bar No. 7637 Jacqueline B. Wilson, LA Bar No. 31055 628 St. Louis Street (70802) Post Office Drawer 4425 Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4425 Phone: (225) 346-1461 Special Assistant Attorneys General CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on 6th day of February, 2013, a copy of the foregoing has this date been served upon all counsel of record via CM/ECF system and has been filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. /s/ Jacqueline B. Wilson JACQUELINE B. WILSON 10 Case 3:12-cv-00796-JJB-SCR Document 23 02/06/13 Page 10 of 10 216/ 13 State by State Lethal injection Death Penalty information Center 1 Home 1 issues I Resources I Facts 1 Reports I Press About Donate site State by State Lethal Injection est states use a 3-drug combination for lethal injections: an anesthetic (either pentobarbital or, formerly, sodium thiopental), . pancuronium bromide (a paralytic agent, also called Pavulon), and potassium chloride (stops the heart and causes death). ONE DRUG: Six states have used a single-drug method for executions--a lethal dose of an anesthetic (Arizona, Idaho, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington). Four other states have announced use of one-drug lethal injection protocols, but have not carried out such an execution (Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, and Georgia). ENTOBARBITAL: Thirteen states have used pentobarbital in executions: Aiabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, aho, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Virginia. Three additional states plan to use entobarbital: Kentucky, Louisiana, and Montana. PROPOFOL: One state pians to use propofol (Diprivan), in a singte--drug protocol: Missouri in federal executions, the method is determined by the state in which the sentencing took place. All 3 of the federal executions in the modern era have been by lethal injection carried out in a federal facility in lndiana. Apparently, a 3-drug combination was used, though prison officials did not reveal the exact ingredients. (See Washington Post, Dec. 5, 2000). The U.S. Military has not carried out any executions since reinstatement. It plans to use lethal injection. ELETHAL INJECTION A First state to use tethai injection: Texas, December 1982 1 First state to use one-drug method: Ohio, December 8, 2009 (slngie drug was sodium thiopental) First state to use pentobarbital in three--drug protocol: Oklahoma, December 16, 2010 I First state to use pentobarbital in one-drug protocol: Ohio, March 10, 2011 For drugs used in individuat executions, see Executions in 2011 Executions in 2012 ww.death ena info.or /execution-list-2012 and Executions in 2013 State-by-State Lethat injection lntertnation State Used Used Latest information Pentobarnital One- in Drug Executions? Protocoi'? Alabama Yes No sodium thiopental seized by DEA in March 2011 (ACLU of Northern CA, 5l17/11) began using pentobarbitai in three--drug protocol on May 19, 2011 (Reuters, 5119/11) Arizona* Yes Yes began using pentobarbital in three-drug protocol on May 25, 2011 (AP, 5/25/ti) switched to one-drug protocol (pentobarbital) on February 29, 2032 (AP, 2/29/12) Execution protocol has been changed to aliow witnesses to watch all of the execution. Previousty, witnesses could not watch the insertion of IV lines (Associated Press, 6/7/12) at least enough pentobarbital for two more executions (AP, 9/19/12) Arkansas* No No turned over sodium thiopental to DEA in July 20?? (AP, 7/21/11) obtained unspecified amount of sodium thiopental from British company (AP, 1/21/11) executions on hold because lethal injection iaw violates state constitution (2012) California* No No obtained sodium thiopental from British company, enough for 86 executions (AP, 1/21/11) executions on hold due to lethal injection challenge in courts; the governor has recommended that the Dept. of Corrections consider changing to a 1-drug protocot a Superior Courtjudge rejected requests to set execution dates, saying he did not have jurisdiction to order the one-drug procedure that has never been used in California (AP, 9/11112) Colorado No No executions on hold due to tethat injection chattenge in courts N0 of 3 1/3 2/6! 13 State by State Lethai injection i Death Penalty lnformati on Center Delaiivare Yes No began using pentobarbitai in three-drug protocoi on July 29, 2011 (deiawai'eonline.corn, 7/29/11) Fiorida Yes No began using pentobarbitai in three-drug protocoi on September 28, 2011 (Washington Post. 9129/1?) Georgia* Yes intends used foreign-bought sodium thiopental in 2 executions before sodium thiopentai was seized by DEA in March 2011 (ACLU to of Northern CA, 5/1'/Iii) began using pentobarbital in ihree-drug protocol on June 23, 2011 (Reuters, 6/23/ii) Announced plans to switch to a singie-drug (pentobarbital) protocoi with execution on Juiy 23, 2012 {Atlanta Journal- Constitution, lciaho Yes Yes began using pentobarbitai in three-drug protocoi on November 18, 2011 First used one--drug method (pentobarbital) on June 12, 20t2 indtana No No uses three-drug protocol Kansas No No statute does not specify drugs; no executions since in modern era Kentucky intends to intends sodium thiopental was seized by DEA in April 2011 (ACLU of Northern CA, 5/17/11); a state judge has ordered the prison to system to consider using a 1-drug protocol. New execution method calls for 3- or 2-drug lethal injection, depending on availability of drugs. New protocol takes effect 2/1/'13, but must be approved by a judge before executions can resume. (AP, 1/31/13) Louisiana Intends to intends announced change to one-drug procedure using pentobarbital (Baton Rouge Advocate, 2/6f13) to Nlaryiand No No executions on hold until iethai injection procedures are enacted Mississippi Yes No began using pentobarbitai in 3-drug protocol on May 10, 2011 (AFP, 5."1 0.111) 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeais has agreed to hear challenge to Mississippi's lethal injection protocol; executions on hold (Associated Press, 8/4f12) Missouri No intends announced plans to svi?tch to one-drug protocol using 2 grams of propofol (Missouri Department of Corrections, to 5/15/12) Montana No No modified protocol to ailow for use of pentobarbital 8/15/11) District Courtjudge ruled Montana's execution procedure unconstitutional (Canadian Press, 9/6/12) Nebrasi>drug protocol on May 6, 2031 (Reuters, 516/11) South Yes Yes Department of Corrections officialiy altered lethal injection procedures to ailow for a one-, two- or three-drug execution Dakota* process. Changes to procedure will ailow either sodium tnicpental or pentobarbitai to be used in one-drug protocol, or as initial drug in other protocols. State has obtained a supply of pentobarbital. (Sioux Falls Argus Leader, 10122/11) began using pentobarbital in one-drug protocol on October 15, 2012 (Associated Press, 10/16/12) Tennessee* No No sodiumthio ental was seized DEA in March 2011 (AC fNort 5 /11 Case 3:1 B-8 Document 2 -3 52/8?/ii37 Page 2 of 3 2/3 2/6/13 State by State Lethal injection Death Penalty information Center has no supply of sodium thiopentai or pancuronium bromide (AP, 1/14/13) Texas Yes Yes began using pentobarbital in three-drug protocol on May 3. 2011 (Walt Street Journal, 514/11) as of May 21, 2012, Department of Criminal Justice has enough tethal injection drugs for 23 executions (Associated Press, May 21, 2012) began using pentoioarbitai in one-drug protocol on Juiy 18, 2012 (BBC News, Juiy E8, 2012) enough pentobarbital for 23 executions (AP, 9/19/12) Utah No No uses three-drug protocol Virginia Yes No began using pentobarbital in three-drug protocol on August 18, 2011 (Washington Post, 8/18/1?) announced switch from pancuronium bromide to rocuronium bromide for second drug in three-drug protocol (Associated Press, Washington No Yes choice of 1- or 3-drug protocoi; used 1-drug (sodium thiopentai) in execution of Cal Brown on 9/10/10 Wyoming No No uses three-drug protocoi marks states that received letters in April 2012 from the FDA requesting that they turn over their foreign-sourced lethai injection drugs, in accordance with the U.S. District Court ruling in Beaty v. FDA (Lincoln Journai Star, 4i18/ 12) iaerated Links: I General Lethai Injection information enalt info.or For drugs used in individual executions, see Executions in 2011 Executions in 2012 and Executions in 5 Return to top (#109) Recommend Case Document 23-1 02/06/13 Page 3 of 3 3/3 Death Penalty News: Texas executes Yokamon Hearth Share 1 More Next Blog>> Page 1 of 42 Create Biog Sign in THURSDAY, JULY 19, 2012 Texas executes Yokamon I-iearn HUNTSVILLE, Texas A 33-year-old man convicted of carjacking and fatally shooting a suburban Dallas stockbroker headed to the Texas death chamber Wednesday, becoming the first person in the state executed with a single lethal drug. Texas Department of Criminai Justice officiais announced last week they were modifying a three-drug execution procedure used since 1982 because the state's suppiy of one of the drugs - the muscle relaxant pancuronium brorn - has "er" Yokamon l-iearn 1 Ohio, Arizona, Idaho and Washington have already adopted a sihgle~drug procedure, and this week Georgia said it would do so, too. Hearn was sentenced to death in the March 1998 slaying of Frank lvieziere, 23. About 3 1/2 hours before Hearn's execution, the US. Supreme Court rejected appeais to hait it. None of the appeais addressed the change in the state's execution drug policy. In one previous appeal, Hearn's Eawyers argued that his mother drank alcohol when she was pregnant, stunting his neurological deveiopment and leaving him with mental impairments that disqualify him from execution under earlier Supreme Court rulings. Testing showed i~iearn's iQ was too high for him to he considered mentally impaired. in another, his appeais lawyers ciaimed the trial attorneys who handied his initial appeals failed to investigate his background and uncover evidence of his aileged mental impairment and troubled childhood. in 2004, he avoided the death chamber when a federai court agreed his mental impairment claims should be reviewed and halted his execution iess than an hour before its scheduled time. Asked by the warden if he wanted to make a fine! statement, he said: "i'd iike to teil my family, i love you and lwish you ail weil. l'm ready." i-learn becomes the 6th condemned inmate to be put to death in Texas this year and the 483rd overali since the state resumed capitai punishment on December 7, 1982. At least 8 other Texas prisoners have execution dates in the coming months, including 3 in August. Hearn becomes the 24th condemned inmate to be put to death this year in the USA and the 1301st overaii since the nation resumed executions on January 17, 1977. Condemned inmates are scheduled to be put to death in Georgia, Arizona, Oklahoma and Louisiana between July 23 and August 15. Sources: AP, Rick Haiperin, July 18, 2612 Case Document 23-2 expired. using a srhgie 9 HOME I MOST RECENT - JUST IN CONTACT Click hereto Contact us SEARCH THIS BLOG SAVE YONG Vlii YGNG Vui KQNG from sir:gapore's G-'aiiaws Yong Vui Kong, 22, was arrested in June 2007 on drug charges. Singapore imposes a MANDATORY DEATH SENTENCE for ail drug trafficking. Yong Vui Kong has exhausted ail his appeais. His East hope rests on presidential clemency. Piease click on the photo to sign a petition urging Singapore: President to commute Yong's death sentence to a prison sentence, Thank you? DID YOU FIND ON THIS BLOG THE INFORMATION YOU WERE LOOKING 02/06/13 Page 1 of 1 2/5/2013 BBC News - Texas executes Yokamon Hearn with pentobarbitol Page 1 of 1 18 July 2012 Last updated at 21:38 ET Texas executes Yokamon Heam with pentobarbitol The US state of Texas has executed its first death row inmate with a single lethal injection of the sedative pentobarbitai. Yokamon l-team, 33, was convicted for the carjacking and murder of a Dallas stockbroker in '1998. l-iearn is the sixth inmate to be killed this year in Texas, but the first after the state stopped using a cocktail of three iethal drugs for executions. Death penalty opponents say inmates die more siowly by the sing?e~drug method. Hearn previously appealed against his sentence, arguing his mental disabilities and inadequate legai advice earty in his case meant he should be spared execution. minutesaft <