Update: Execution stay granted. Among those fighting for the stay of execution: Former Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr - whose involvement is detailed in this WaPo article. [link via Sentencing Law and Policy]

**********
Robin Lovitt, 41, is scheduled for execution tonight in Virginia.

Virginia prepared Monday to execute a man convicted of stabbing a pool hall manager to death with a pair of scissors, a case that has attracted national attention because the murder weapon and DNA evidence were destroyed after the trial.

by Last Night in Little Rock

CNN reports today that a Kentucky trial judge upheld lethal injection as a form of execution, as long as the state does not use the jugular vein if another vein is not available.

While upholding lethal injection, the judge said the state should not be allowed to administer the fatal drugs through an intravenous catheter stuck into the prisoner's jugular vein, in the neck, if no suitable veins can be found in the arms or legs.

He said it was unconstitutionally cruel and should be removed from the process. Officials said they had already removed that step as an option.

Unless somebody has witnessed an execution, one cannot say that even lethal injection is completely painless. I've watched two clients die, and the experience never leaves you. They gasp for air and their face turns gray as life slips away. 'They' say it is peaceful, but it isn't. Why anybody would volunteer to witness an execution is beyond me. I did it because I was obligated to as counsel and among the last friend the clients seemingly had.

Republicans have introduced a bill to speed up the death penalty by limiting habeas appeals.

The "Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005," introduced into the House of Representatives by California Rep. Dan Lungren and in the Senate by Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, would limit the ability of defendants facing the death sentence to have their cases reviewed by federal courts in what are known as habeas corpus appeals.

...Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee considering the bill, conceded there was little chance of blocking it in the House. "The House has been very supportive of anything that would strip the innocent of a fair hearing. This bill will ensure that more innocent people will be put to death," he said in a telephone interview.

This is a** backwards. One of the principal reasons death penalty appeals take so long is that people languish on death row for years before a lawyer is appointed to represent them. If we raised the compensation levels and provided adeqate expense money for forensic testing and experts, more qualified lawyers would volunteer to defend death cases on appeal and in habeas proceedings and they wouldn't last so long.

The Supreme Court today agreed to hear a Tennessee death penalty case to resolve the issue of when an inmate has the right to have a court consider DNA evidence.

"This will be the first time the Supreme Court considers the impact of DNA evidence on the constitutional right to a fair trial," said Nina Morrison, an attorney with the Innocence Project in New York. "The potential implications are significant." Morrison said that her project is handling about 100 cases involving prisoners who want a chance to prove their innocence.

The death row inmate in the case, Paul House, wants a new trial. DNA tests confirmed the semen inside the murder victim was not his, but her husband's:

For the first time in 40 years, a death penalty trial is taking place in Vermont. Vermont doesn't have the death penalty. But that didn't stop former Attorney General John Ashcroft from insisting the case be transferred to federal court so the death penalty could be sought.

In 2002 federal prosecutors and defense attorneys had reached a plea deal to have Fell plead guilty in exchange for a sentence of life without parole. But that deal was struck down by the Justice Department, which insisted on the death penalty.

Jury selection began today. If there's any good news, it's that the Justice Department has been losing most of these trials. See, these two cases in Puerto Rico; this one in Binghamton, NY.; this one in Miami; this one in Brooklyn, NY. More here.

Sen. Rick Perry's office released this statement today to commemorate his signing of S. 60, passed by the Texas legislature, which will allow juries to consider life without the possiblility of parole in death penalty cases.

Under the current system, because the only choices are death or life with parole, jurors may be more likely to vote for death.

The law will apply those convicted of capital murder after Sept. 1, 2005. Background on the bill is here.

With a stinging rebuke, the Supreme Court today threw out the death sentence of Thomas Miller-El. Prosecutors in the case had removed 91% of the black jurors.

Prosecutors removed 10 out of 11 potential black jurors before the trial. Miller-El is black while the victim was white. The jury had nine whites, one Hispanic, one Filipino and one black....[Justice David] Souter said the jury selection process was "replete with evidence that the prosecutors were selecting and rejecting potential jurors because of race."

The opinion by Justice Souter is here. Justices Scalia and Thomas and Chief Justice Rehnquist dissented.

by TChris

The Charlotte Observer today praises North Carolina legislators who want to reform the state's administration of the death penalty.

North Carolina's criminal justice system makes too many mistakes. The state has convicted the wrong person for murder on several occasions. Unless the legislature finds out why and corrects the problem, it's only a matter of time before it executes an innocent person. Lawmakers must not allow this to happen.

The risk of executing the innocent isn't the only flaw in the state's administration of the death penalty. While ending the death penalty is the only way to be certain that the government is not killing an innocent prisoner, the need to make fundamental improvements to the system -- even if punishment by death isn't abolished -- is obvious.

Good news! The Texas House has passed a bill, approved by the Senate last month, that provides for a life without parole option for juries considering death sentences. Under the current system, because the only choices are death or life with parole, jurors may be more likely to vote for death.

Rep. Harold Dutton, D-Houston, also got an amendment on the bill to ban the execution of persons who committed their crimes as minors. Supporters have said the option is needed for killers who are 17 and cannot be executed, according to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, as well as for other mitigating circumstances.

A final vote on the bill is scheduled Wednesday. If approved, the bill will be sent back to the Senate, where the sponsor will decide whether to accept the amended version.

Background is here.

by TChris

TalkLeft wrote here and here about an AP investigation of Ohio's inconsistent administration of the death penalty. An editorial in today's Fort Wayne Journal Gazette concludes that Gov. George Taft, like former Illinois Gov. George Ryan, should call a halt to state-sanctioned death.

Avoiding the issue would be politically easy. But evading the truth would be morally bankrupt.

The editorial notes that Indiana's experience with the death penalty has been similar to Ohio's.

A 2001 study uncovered the capricious nature of how the death penalty is applied in Indiana. Life or death factors included the competence of defense attorneys and prosecutors, the defendant’s socio-economic status, as well as the political and economic climate among Indiana’s counties.

The question is one of political courage.

The specter of appearing soft on crime is an accusation many governors face in this situation. But a moratorium on the death penalty doesn’t mitigate the severity of the crime. Taft’s actions would signal that he believes a truly remarkable system of punishing criminals must at all times be fair and applicable to all defendants.

Stephen Bright and Virgina Sloan of the Southern Center for Human Rights, make the case that Congress should grant death row inmates the same degree of judicial review extended to Terry Schiavo.

Proponents of the law that required federal court review of the Terri Schiavo case said that all possible protections should be available when a human life is at stake. Said Senator Mel Martinez, R-Fla., "We will simply be allowing the federal judge to give one last review, one last look in a case that has so many questions, that has so many anxieties, and that will provide us the kind of assurance before the ultimate fate of this woman is decided to know that we did all we could do and that every last measure of review was given her, just like it would have been given to a death row inmate convicted and sentenced to die."

But, Martinez was wrong because since 1996 when Congress enacted the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), those sentenced to death have been prevented from receiving a full review in the courts. There are other obstacles as well.

The Connecticut Supreme Court has denied a request to halt Michael Ross's execution, which will be the first in New England in 45 years.

The high court upheld an earlier ruling that Ross was competent to make his own decisions, rejecting arguments that the waiver of his appeals was involuntary.

The Connecticut Law Blog is monitoring all developments as well as news coverage.