Saturday, August 26, 2006

Resources in Clarence Hill

Resources
Text of 42 U.S.C. §1983, courtesy of the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School

Full text of the Supreme Court's decision (.pdf)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida (PDF)
Hill's Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (PDF)
Certiorari Granted (PDF)
Brief for the Petitioner (PDF)
Respondent's Brief on the Merits (PDF)
Reply Brief for Petitioner (PDF)
Brief Amici Curiae of Human Rights Advocates, Human Rights Watch, and Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights in Support of Petitioner (PDF)
Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondents (PDF)
liibulletin: Hill v. McDonough

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_v._McDonough"
Category: United States death penalty case law

Legal data in Clarence Hill

1 Factual background
1.1 Lethal injection in Florida
2 Lower court proceedings
2.1 Florida state courts
2.2 U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
2.3 Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
2.4 Certiorari granted
3 Parties and counsel
3.1 Petitioner
3.2 Respondents
3.3 Counsel
3.4 Counsel Amicus Curiae
4 Briefs of the petitioner and respondent
4.1 Question One
4.1.1 Hill's brief
4.1.2 Government's brief
4.1.3 Hill's rebuttal brief
4.2 Question Two
4.2.1 Hill's brief
4.2.2 Government's brief
4.2.3 Hill's rebuttal brief
5 The Court's decision
6 Notes
7 Resources

Friday, August 25, 2006

Case number Federal Court Florida


4:06-cv-00032-SPM HILL v. CROSBY et al filed 01/20/06 closed 01/23/06


4:96-cv-00288-MP HILL v. BUTTERWORTH, et al filed 07/08/96 closed 11/25/98


4:05-mc-00022-SPM V. HILL filed 12/13/05

Hill v. McDonough


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_v._McDonough

Hill v. McDonough
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hill v. McDonough


Supreme Court of the United States

Argued April 26, 2006

Decided June 12, 2006

Full case name: Clarence E. Hill v. James R. McDonough, Interim Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al
Citations: 547 U.S. ___; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 4674
Prior history: Petition dismissed, M.D. Fla., Jan. 21, 2006; affirmed, 437 F.3d 1084, 11th Cir.; cert. granted, 126 S. Ct. 1189 (2006)

Subsequent history:

Holding
Because a death row prisoner's Eighth Amendment challenge to the method of execution was not a habeas corpus petition, but instead stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983, his claim could not be barred by his previously filed petition for habeas relief. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.

Court membership
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
Associate Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito

Case opinions
Majority by: Kennedy
Joined by: Unanimous Court

Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. VIII; 28 U.S.C. § 2244; 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hill v. McDonough (2006), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court challenging the use of lethal injection as a form of execution in the state of Florida. The Court ruled unanimously that a challenge to the method of execution as violating the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution properly raised a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action for civil rights violations, rather than under the habeas corpus provisions. Accordingly, that the prisoner had previously sought habeas relief could not bar the present challenge.

Contents
1 Factual background
1.1 Lethal injection in Florida
2 Lower court proceedings
2.1 Florida state courts
2.2 U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
2.3 Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
2.4 Certiorari granted
3 Parties and counsel
3.1 Petitioner
3.2 Respondents
3.3 Counsel
3.4 Counsel Amicus Curiae
4 Briefs of the petitioner and respondent
4.1 Question One
4.1.1 Hill's brief
4.1.2 Government's brief
4.1.3 Hill's rebuttal brief
4.2 Question Two
4.2.1 Hill's brief
4.2.2 Government's brief
4.2.3 Hill's rebuttal brief
5 The Court's decision
6 Notes
7 Resources



Factual background

In 1983, Clarence E. Hill was convicted of the murder of a Pensacola, Florida police officer, and subsequently sentenced to death. In 1985, in the Florida Supreme Court case of Hill v. State[1]. At a resentencing hearing in 1986, Hill’s death sentence was reinstated, this time being upheld by the Florida Supreme Court[2]. In November 1989, a warrant for Hill’s execution was signed by then Governor Robert Martinez, after which Hill sought postconviction relief in both the Florida state courts and the U.S. District Court. In 1992, Hill’s relief was granted when it was ruled that the Florida Supreme Court as well as Hill’s trial court had not properly reevaluated the aggravating factors warranting a death sentence when one of them was vacated. In Hill v. State[3], the Florida Supreme Court, having sufficiently reweighed the mitigating factors, resentenced Hill to death. Hill then sought federal habeas corpus relief, which was first denied by the U.S. District Court, then affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.[4]


Lethal injection in Florida
In January 2000, the Florida legislature amended its state statutes changing the prescribed method of execution from electrocution to lethal injection, unless the person sentenced to death affirmatively elects to be executed by electrocution.[5] The precise authority by which lethal injection was to be carried out was left to the Florida Department of Corrections.

The Florida Department of Corrections does not publish its information about lethal injection, and so the only source available describing Florida’s use of the lethal injection death penalty comes from Sims v. State[6], which indicated that the lethal injection death penalty was carried out by first administering sodium pentothal, an anesthetic, then pancuronium bromide, which paralyzes the lungs, and followed lastly by potassium chloride, which inflicts cardiac arrest.


Lower court proceedings
On November 29, 2005, Florida Governor Jeb Bush signed a warrant for Hill’s execution, which was to be carried out on January 24, 2006. Upon the signing of his death warrant, Hill requested information from the Department of Corrections regarding the specific methods by which lethal injection were carried out. Sims v. State permitted the Florida Department of Corrections to change it’s procedures for carrying out the lethal injection death penalty as it saw fit, and Hill sought to find out how those procedures had changed, if at all. The Florida Department of Corrections refused to comply with Hill’s request.


Florida state courts
Because the information in Sims v. State seemed to suggest the possibility of causing great bodily harm, Hill filed, on December 15, 2005, a petition for postconviction relief in the state of Florida and requested an evidentiary hearing to investigate whether or not the state’s lethal injection death penalty did, in fact, cause bodily harm. The Circuit Court for Escambia County denied Hill’s motions for postconviction relief and for an evidentiary hearing. Hill then appealed to the Florida Supreme Court on January 3, 2006. In January 17, 2006, Florida’s High Court affirmed.[7]


U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Three days later, on January 20, Hill filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under 42 U.S.C. 1983, challenging that Florida’s lethal injection death penalty would cause great bodily harm in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Hill requested an injunction barring his execution until his claims could be judged upon as well as a permanent injunction barring the Department of Corrections from utilizing the lethal injection death penalty. Hill did not, however, challenge his death sentence.

The next day, the U.S. District Court denied Hill’s petition, contending that standing case law was clear on the matter of jurisdiction. Under Robinson v. Crosby[8] and In re Provenzano[9], the District Court held that Hill’s claim was the same as a petition for habeas corpus, and, as a result, was required to be dismissed because Hill had not filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b).


Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
With Hill’s execution approaching fast, Hill filed an emergency appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which, on the day of Hill’s execution, affirmed the U.S. District Court. They agreed with the lower court that Hill’s suit was, in fact, a habeas corpus petition, and the District Court was right to dismiss.


Certiorari granted
The same day, Hill petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari and requested a stay of execution. Justice Kennedy granted a temporary stay, which was followed up the next day by a granting of certiorari from the entire Court and a full stay of execution.


Parties and counsel

Petitioner
The petitioner in Hill v. McDonough is Clarence Edward Hill. In the lower courts, Hill is also the plaintiff-appellant.


Respondents
In the lower courts, the respondents in Hill v. McDonough were James V. Crosby, Jr., the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections, and Charlie Crist, the Attorney General of Florida. In the lower courts, both Crosby and Crist were defendants-appellants.

Since the lower court rulings, James V. Crosby, Jr. has been replaced by James R. McDonough, the Interim Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections.

Hill has amended his suit to include McDonough and exclude Crosby. Crist remains as a respondent.


Counsel
Hill’s counsel of record is D. Todd Doss of Lake City, FL. Assisting him in the appeal are Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Ian Heath Gershengorn, and Eric Berger, all of whom are from Jenner & Block LLP. John Abatecola, a private attorney from Sunrise, FL, is also assisting.

McDonough and Crist’s attorney of record is Carolyn M. Snurkowski, the Assistant Deputy Attorney General for the state of Florida. Charlie Crist is also assisting.


Counsel Amicus Curiae
Amicus Curiae for Hill are Human Rights Advocates, Human Rights Watch, and the Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights. They are represented by Constance de La Vega, Professor of Law at the University of San Francisco, whose office is at the Frank C. Newman International Human Rights Law Clinic. Assisting is David Weissbrodt, a Regents Professor as well as a Frederickson & Byron Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota.

Amicus Curiae for McDonough and Crist are the Solicitor General’s Office, the Attorney General’s Office, and the Department of Justice. They are represented by Paul D. Clement, the United States Solicitor General. Assisting him are Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher, Deputy Solicitor General Gregory G. Garre, Assistant Solicitor General Kannon K. Shanmugam, and Department of Justice Attorney Robert J. Erickson.


Briefs of the petitioner and respondent
In Hill’s brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, two questions are presented:


Question One
1. Whether a complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a death-sentenced state prisoner, who seeks to stay his execution in order to pursue a challenge to the chemicals utilized for carrying out the execution, is properly recharacterized as a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.


Hill's brief
By invoking 42 U.S.C. 1983, Hill argues that the procedures for carrying out lethal injection as prescribed by the Florida Department of Corrections are intended to violate his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment. The Eleventh Circuit’s dismal of his petition, Hill argues, fails to adjudicate his Eighth Amendment claim, and, accordingly, requests the Eleventh Circuit's ruling be reversed.


Government's brief
The government contends that, because the end result of Hill’s suit is to challenge a death sentence, the claim must be filed under the 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas statute, under which such challenges are supposed to be filed. Accordingly, the government requests the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling be affirmed.


Hill's rebuttal brief
Hill rebuts the government by saying that habeas claims under 28 U.S.C. 2254 are reserved for challenges for the death penalty as a whole, whereas challenges for the specific method of execution should be controlled by 42 U.S.C. 1983. Accordingly, Hill requests the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling be reversed.


Question Two
2. Whether, under this Court’s decision in Nelson, a challenge to a particular protocol the State plans to use during the execution process constitutes a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.


Hill's brief
Citing Nelson v. Cambell[10], Hill argues that, because his petition is only challenging the method by which the state of Florida intends to execute him, and not the death sentence itself, the Court is required to entertain his petition, and, accordingly, requests the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling be reversed.


Government's brief
The government challenges Hill’s reading of Nelson, contending that claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 are only cognizable if a habeas challenge has been entertained. Accordingly, the government requests the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling be affirmed.


Hill's rebuttal brief
Hill rebuts the government by saying that Nelson controls so long as a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 is specific to the method of the execution and not the sentence itself. Accordingly, Hill requests the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling be reversed.


The Court's decision
The Supreme Court handed down its decision on June 12 2006.


Notes
^ 477 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1985)
^ Hill v. State, 515 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 993 (1988)
^ 643 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 1995)
^ Hill v. Moore, 175 F.3d 915 (11th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1087 (2000)
^ Fla. Stat. § 922.105
^ 754 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2000)
^ Hill v. State, No. SC06-2, __ So. 2d __, 2006 WL 91302 (Fla. Jan. 17, 2006), cert. denied, No. 05-8731, 2006 WL 160276 (Feb. 27, 2006)
^ 358 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2004)
^ 215 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2000)
^ 541 U.S. 637 (2004)


Resources
Text of 42 U.S.C. §1983, courtesy of the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School
Full text of the Supreme Court's decision (.pdf)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida (PDF)
Hill's Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (PDF)
Certiorari Granted (PDF)
Brief for the Petitioner (PDF)
Respondent's Brief on the Merits (PDF)
Reply Brief for Petitioner (PDF)
Brief Amici Curiae of Human Rights Advocates, Human Rights Watch, and Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights in Support of Petitioner (PDF)
Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondents (PDF)
liibulletin: Hill v. McDonough

Retrieved from "http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_v._McDonough
Category: United States death penalty case law



USSC grants certiorari in Clarence Hill


ORDER LIST: 546 U.S.)

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2006

CERTIORARI GRANTED

05-8794 HILL, CLARENCE E. V. CROSBY, SEC., FL DOC, ET AL. (05A676)

The application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the Court is granted. The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The brief of petitioner is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Monday, March 6, 2006. The brief of respondents is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Monday, April 3, 2006. The reply brief, if any, is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Monday, April 17, 2006. The stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.

Justice Anstead, Florida Supreme Court dissent in Clarence Hill





Justice Anstead, Florida Supreme Court dissent in Clarence Hill

ANSTEAD, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the majority’s ruling on all of the issues with the exception of the
trial court’s summary denial of an evidentiary hearing on appellant’s unrebutted
claim asserting new evidence as to the constitutionality of Florida’s administrative
protocol for execution by lethal injection. This new evidence is totally beyond
anything considered by this Court or the trial court in Sims.
Hill asserts that a recent scientific study of this protocol published in a
highly respected medical journal concludes, through the analysis of empirical afterthe-
fact data, that the use of the chemicals prescribed in Florida’s protocol creates
a foreseeable risk of the gratuitous and unnecessary infliction of pain. See
Leonidas G. Koniaris et al., Inadequate Anesthesia in Lethal Injection for
Execution, 365, 1412-14 (2005). Hill also has presented the sworn affidavit of one
of the actual scientists who conducted the study, Dr. David A. Lubarsky. In this
affidavit, Dr. Lubarsky states that “the use of this succession of chemicals
[prescribed in Florida’s protocol], in judicial executions by lethal injection creates
a foreseeable risk of the unnecessary infliction of pain and suffering.” This
opinion is essentially predicated upon the fact that in almost half the cases
examined in the study the pain-killer intended to prevent the sensation of pain had
actually worn off before the onset of pain from the massive heart attack brought on
by the procedure.
- 13 -
In his affidavit Dr. Lubarsky explains that the use of one of the chemicals,
pancuronium bromide, is unnecessary to bring about the death of a person being
executed by lethal injection. Dr. Lubarsky further explains in his affidavit that
when a third prescribed chemical, potassium chloride, reaches the heart, it actually
causes a deadly and painful heart attack. He asserts that because of the likelihood
that the anesthesia administered in the first chemical will have worn off by that
time, the condemned inmate will actually experience the substantial pain of a fatal
heart attack brought on by the process. However, the inmate will be unable to
communicate his pain because the pancuronium bromide will have paralyzed his
face, his arms, and his entire body so that he cannot express himself either verbally
or otherwise. Dr. Lubarsky concludes that because Florida’s protocol is like those
of the states which conducted autopsies and toxicology reports and provided them
to him and the other scientists conducting the study, there is a substantial risk that
Hill will suffer the same unnecessary pain during his execution.
Despite the fact that Hill presented the results of this recent scientific study
and Dr. Lubarsky’s findings in an affidavit, the State has failed to rebut or
challenge the validity of these findings, which were expressed to a reasonable
degree of scientific certainty. Consequently, under our controlling case law on
postconviction remedies, the allegations asserted in the claim must be taken as true
pending an evidentiary hearing to resolve the claim. Peede v. State, 748 So. 2d
- 14 -
253, 257 (Fla. 1999); Gaskin v. State, 737 So. 2d 509, 516 (Fla. 1999). Of course,
if there is ever to be an instance when we should adhere to our law mandating an
evidentiary hearing it should be here where a pending execution will soon moot the
unrebutted claim. In rejecting an evidentiary hearing at the trial level the majority
has essentially conducted its own trial on the merits and rendered a summary
judgment for the State.
The State also attempts to assert a procedural bar, claiming that Hill has not
shown why he did not raise this issue at an earlier time. However, Hill has clearly
demonstrated that this new scientific evidence was not available until the
publication of the scientific study in 2005. The study and its findings obviously
constitute new evidence of the effects of execution by lethal injection. No cases in
Florida prior to this one have considered this study. This Court, for example, did
not have the benefit of this or any other scientific study when concluding that the
protocols were constitutional in Sims.
In fact, this study appears to constitute the first empirical evidence available
regarding the effects of lethal injection, thus providing the State and the courts
with a unique opportunity to test this method of execution as it is actually being
applied. An evidentiary hearing would present a win-win situation for all. The
State would undoubtedly benefit from the opportunity to demonstrate the efficacy
of its present protocol for lethal injection executions, and to rebut the conclusions
- 15 -
of the scientific study. On the other hand, the State may also benefit from this
scientific research by having the opportunity to modify its protocol if the study and
its results stand up in an evidentiary hearing.
Perhaps the ultimate irony to the denial of an evidentiary hearing in this
case, where execution is imminent, is that the State concedes that another trial
court in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida has ordered that an evidentiary
hearing be conducted on this exact same issue in a non-warrant capital case. See
Knight v. State, No. 97-05175CFA02 (Fla. Jan. 10, 2006) (granting motion for
continuance). Hill, of course, will not be around to benefit if the trial court in
Knight determines that Florida’s protocol requires modification.

Jeb sets execution date to force court action


http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060819/NEWS01/60819002/1075

Tallahassee

Jeb sets execution date to force court action

By Paul Flemmingnews-press.com Tallahassee Bureau
Originally posted on August 19, 2006

Eleventh Circuit Court of AppealsUS NewsUS Supreme CourtJeb Bush


TALLAHASSEE — Gov. Jeb Bush is forcing a federal appeals court into action about the constitutionality of Florida’s lethal injection executions by setting a new date for Clarence Hill’s death sentence.On Thursday, Bush reinstated the death warrant against Hill, setting a Sept. 20 date for his execution.Hill, the convicted killer of a Pensacola police officer, had his scheduled January execution halted at the last minute with a reprieve from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Bush’s action comes while Hill has a pending appeal before the federal 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that argues Florida’s procedure is cruel and unusual punishment. Bush said in June, after the Supreme Court ruling that allowed Hill to press his claim, that he would sign no new death warrants until the issues raised by Hill’s case were settled.But nothing’s happened in the case.“The governor’s intention is to see that justice be served,” said Russell Schweiss, spokesman for Bush.Opponents of the death penalty didn’t see it that way.“With an appeal pending and so many unanswered questions about Florida’s method of execution, this reinstatement is a ghoulish abuse of the legal system,” said Mark Elliott, spokesman for Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, in a statement. “Why now? Why prevent this man from proceeding with his claim?”Though the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hill in June and said he could question the constitutionality of Florida’s lethal injection as a civil rights claim, the federal court of appeal has not taken any action. Hill, 48, was sentenced to death for the 1982 murder of Stephen Taylor during a bank robbery attempt.In a Thursday letter to prison officials, Bush said the time for rehearing the case has lapsed and ended the stay of Hill’s execution.In June, Bush said Florida’s death penalty procedures were “under review” and more death warrants would not be signed for the 376 inmates on death row in the state. At the time he said he was looking for guidance from the court where Hill’s appeal was sent back to by the Supreme Court.Carolyn Snurkowski, assistant deputy attorney general for the state, said the governor’s action would get things rolling with the appeals court. The state was obliged to reinstate the death warrant, she said.“There’s not a stay and he has a valid judgment and sentence and the governor has the ability to press forward with that,” said Carolyn Snurkowski, assistant deputy attorney general for the state.Hill’s attorney did not return a phone message Friday.

In a related case, the federal appeals court has acted, seeking arguments from the state and another condemned killer.Arthur Rutherford, also scheduled to be executed in January and granted a last-moment reprieve from the nation’s highest court, has a similar appeal before the 11th Circuit. In that case, the state and Rutherford’s attorneys have filed arguments about what to do next.“It seems pretty clear from the (Supreme Court) opinion that both cases should be remanded to the district court and proceedings should be held,” said Linda McDermott, Rutherford’s attorney. “We want to amend (Rutherford’s appeal) and have somebody hear all this evidence.”McDermott said cases in Missouri and California have revealed further evidence about lethal injection procedures. Both Rutherford and Hill’s attorneys argued in their appeals that the three-drug cocktail used to kill Florida inmates has the potential to cause the condemned great pain.Rutherford is sentenced to death for the 1985 killing of 63-year-old Milton resident Stella Salamon.

Despite Pending Appeal, Govenor Reinstates Hill Death Warrant


http://www.news4jax.com/news/9698826/detail.html

Despite Pending Appeal, Govenor Reinstates Hill Death Warrant

POSTED: 6:53 am EDT August 18, 2006


TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- Gov. Jeb Bush reinstated a death warrant Thursday for condemned killer Clarence Hill and prison officials scheduled his execution for next month although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the inmate can challenge the state's method of lethal injection.
Hill was strapped to a gurney and his arms attached to intravenous tubes set to deliver a fatal cocktail of three drugs when the U.S. Supreme Court in January intervened and blocked his execution.
In June the high court unanimously ruled Hill and other condemned inmates could make last-minute claims that the chemicals used are too painful and therefore amount to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Bush issued his new order to execute Hill after receiving a letter from Attorney General Charlie Crist telling him Hill's stay of execution from the Supreme Court had expired and he had no knowledge of any others. Prison officials scheduled Sept. 20 as the date of the execution.
"I find it troubling," said D. Todd Doss, Hill's lawyer. "We have a clear 9-0 opinion from the United States Supreme Court."
The high court returned the case to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. Doss said he expects the appellate court next to send it back to a federal trial court to hear the lethal injection challenge.
Doss said he would ask the appellate court to issue a stay so the Supreme Court's decision can be carried out.
In a letter to Florida State Prison warden Randall Bryant, Bush wrote that the Supreme Court's stay was lifted when a 25-day period for rehearing the matter elapsed. Doss said he was reserving comment on that issue.
Condemned inmates in Florida and many other states are injected with a painkiller along with drugs to paralyze their muscles and cause a fatal heart attack. Lawyers for the inmates contend the painkiller can wear off too soon resulting in an agonizing death, yet the prisoners cannot react because of the paralyzing drug.
Hill was convicted of fatally shooting Pensacola police officer Stephen Taylor and wounding his partner during a 1982 bank robbery.
The Supreme Court also halted the execution of another Florida inmate, Arthur Rutherford, who also sought to challenge the lethal injection procedure. Rutherford, too, had been scheduled to die in January. He was convicted for the 1985 drowning and asphyxiation of 63-year-old Stella Salamon at her Milton home. He had worked for Salamon.

Previous Stories:
January 31, 2006: Supreme Court Halts Second Florida Execution In Seven Days
November 30, 2005: Gov. Bush Signs 2 Death Warrants; Executions Set For January

New death warrant may be blocked


http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/15301761.htm

Posted on Fri, Aug. 18, 2006

DEATH ROW
New death warrant may be blocked

Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier that convicted killer Clarence Hill can challenge Florida's method of execution, Gov. Jeb Bush reinstated Hill's death warrant.

BY BILL KACZOR
Associated Press

TALLAHASSEE - Gov. Jeb Bush reinstated a death warrant Thursday for condemned killer Clarence Hill and prison officials scheduled his execution for next month, although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the inmate can challenge the state's method of lethal injection.
Hill was strapped to a gurney and his arms were attached to intravenous tubes set to deliver a fatal cocktail of three drugs when the U.S. Supreme Court in January intervened in the case and blocked his execution.
In June, the high court unanimously ruled Hill and other condemned inmates could make last-minute claims that the chemicals used are too painful and therefore amount to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Bush issued his new order to execute Hill after receiving a letter from Attorney General Charlie Crist telling him Hill's stay of execution from the Supreme Court had expired and he had no knowledge of any others.
Prison officials scheduled Sept. 20 as the date of the execution.
''I find it troubling,'' said D. Todd Doss, Hill's lawyer. ``We have a clear 9-0 opinion from the United States Supreme Court.''
The high court returned the case to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.
Doss said he expects the appellate court next to send it back to a federal trial court to hear the lethal injection challenge.
Doss said he would ask the appellate court to issue a stay so the Supreme Court's decision can be carried out.
In a letter to Florida State Prison warden Randall Bryant, Bush wrote that the Supreme Court's stay was lifted when a 25-day period for rehearing the matter elapsed. Doss said he was reserving comment on that issue.
Condemned inmates in Florida and many other states are injected with a painkiller along with drugs to paralyze their muscles and cause a fatal heart attack.
Lawyers for the inmates contend the painkiller can wear off too soon, resulting in an agonizing death, yet the prisoners cannot react because of the paralyzing drug.
Hill was convicted of fatally shooting Pensacola police officer Stephen Taylor and wounding his partner during a 1982 bank robbery.
The Supreme Court also halted the execution of another Florida inmate, Arthur Rutherford, who also sought to challenge the lethal injection procedure.
Rutherford, too, had been scheduled to die in January. He was convicted in the 1985 drowning and asphyxiation of 63-year-old Stella Salamon at her Milton home. He had worked for Salamon.

Bush Reinstates Clarence Hill's Death Warrant


http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060818/NEWS/608180389/1004

Published Friday, August 18, 2006
TALLAHASSEE

Bush Reinstates Clarence Hill's Death Warrant

Gov. Jeb Bush reinstated a death warrant Thursday for condemned killer Clarence Hill and prison officials scheduled his execution for next month, although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the inmate can challenge the state's method of lethal injection.Hill was strapped to a gurney and his arms attached to intravenous tubes set to deliver a fatal cocktail of three drugs when the U.S. Supreme Court in January intervened and blocked his execution.

Clarence Hill - Florida

Clarence Hill - Florida State Prison








http://www.oranous.com/florida/FloridaStatePrison.html

How to visit Florida State Prison

Directions:

From East: SR-16, 11 miles west of Starke on left. Go through archway, circle to left, Administration Building (Red Brick) behind parking lot. From North: (Macclenny) SR-121 south approximately 17 miles to SR-16 (before town of Raiford). Turn left onto SR-16. Go approximately 3 miles, cross New River Bridge. The Institution is on the right. From South: US-301 north approximately 35 miles to SR-16 (Raiford Road) (West), go approximately 11 miles. The Institution is on the left. From West (Lake City): SR-100 approximately 23 miles to SR-121 (Lake Butler), turn left, go approximately 6 miles, just outside town of Raiford turn right (east) onto SR-16. Go approximately 3 miles, cross New River Bridge. The Institution is on the right.

Historical Information: What is now Union Correctional Institution was the original Florida State Prison and what is now known as Florida State Prison Main Unit was constructed with the death chamber in 1961. As the East Unit, it was designed as a maximum security prison to house 1,176 adult male minimum, medium, close, and maximum custody inmates and remains the same today. Florida State Prison Main Unit's title was transferred to the East Unit in 1973 and the old "flat top" Florida State Prison became Union Correctional Institution. All medical grades are accepted and some self-betterment programs are provided.
The O-Unit was built in 1955 as a maximum security unit assigned to the original Florida State Prison, housing close custody inmates. It is now utilized as a work camp, assigned to Florida State Prison, housing minimum and medium custody inmates.