Lawyer: Hill's death sentence could be carried out

September 15, 2006


Florida Lawyer: Hill's death sentence could be carried out

By RON WORD, Associated Press

Condemned police killer Clarence Hill faces execution next week after federal courts have refused to once again stop his death based on his claims that Florida's lethal injection process is unconstitutional.

Hill was strapped to a gurney with lines running into his arms in January, when the U.S. Supreme Court stayed his execution for the 1982 shooting death. In June, the high court ruled unanimously that he could ask federal courts to decide whether the injection chemicals are too painful and amount to cruel and unusual punishment.

But so far, federal courts haven't ruled on whether the chemicals should be used, and have agreed with the state's arguments that Hill should have challenged the use of the chemicals when the state switched to lethal injection in 2000. Gov. Jeb Bush has rescheduled the execution for 6 p.m.Wednesday.

"By arbitrarily setting an execution date ... the state has attempted to manipulate the process and kill Mr. Hill before its unconstitutional method of execution is reviewed on its merits," defense attorney D. Todd Doss argued in court documents before the U.S. District Court in Tallahassee.

But on Monday, U.S. District Judge Stephan P. Mickle refused to grant a stay to Hill's execution and accused Hill in court documents of engaging in delaying tactics to halt his execution. Doss challenged that ruling Thursday with the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, which has previously turned him down.

Hill, 48, has argued that the three chemicals used in Florida executions and by many other states - sodium pentothal, pancuronium bromide and potassiumchloride - can cause excruciating pain. The first drug is a painkiller. The second one paralyzes the inmate and the third causes a fatal heart attack.

A 2005 study published in the Lancet medical journal questioned whether a painkiller administered at the start of an execution can wear off before a prisoner dies, causing the inmate severe pain. Hill based his legal claims on that study.

Carolyn Snurkowski, an attorney handling death penalty cases for Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist, said Hill is not entitled to challenge the chemicals used. She also said Hill shouldn't have waited until four days before his scheduled execution in January to challenge them. Doss, however, said he could not file the challenge until the death warrant was signed last November.

The Supreme Court only allowed him the right to file his claims, not "an automatic license for an evidentiary hearing," Snurkowski said.

Deborah W. Denno, a professor at Fordham Law School and an expert on the death penalty, was surprised that Hill has not received a court hearing to determine the merits of his claims.

"The problems in Florida are shared with other states - the chemicals used, poor training, the environment in which injections are done and the secrecy of the process," Denno said.

Doss said the only court hearing since Hill received the stay was his appearance before the Supreme Court, which didn't decide whether the injections were cruel and unusual punishment.

Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said in June that while Hill and other inmates can file special appeals under a federal civil rights law after exhausting regular appeals, they will not always be entitled to delays in their executions.

Mark Elliott, a spokesman for Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, believes Hill should receive his day in court."With so many unanswered questions about Florida's method of execution, this action by the lower courts is a ghoulish abuse of the legal system," Elliott said. "What is hidden behind the killing room curtain."

Hill was condemned for killing police Officer Stephen Taylor during the Oct.22, 1982, robbery of a savings and loan in Pensacola. Taylor's relatives traveled to Starke in January to see Hill die and were disappointed with a stay. They want it to happen this time.

Jack Taylor, of Pensacola, said there is no doubt that Hill shot and killed his brother and he is unhappy with the fight over whether Hill might feel pain when he is executed.

"When it comes to the fact that he will be uncomfortable when he dies, that is bull," Taylor said.-

--Source : Associated Press

http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060915/APN/609151755

Do Not Execute Clarence Edward Hill!

Clarence Edward Hill, FL September 20, 2006

Do Not Execute Clarence Edward Hill!

Clarence Edward Hill

September 20, 2006

Florida

Clarence Edward Hill, a black man, faces execution in Florida for the murder of a police officer during a robbery in Pensacola, Florida. Hill and his accomplice Cliff Jackson stole a car and a gun and then attempted to rob a savings and loan association. When officers arrived, Jackson ran out the front door and was apprehended, while Hill ran out the back. Hill then came to the front of the building to shoot the officers that were subduing Jackson.

Hill was 23 at the time and there is evidence to suggest that Jackson masterminded the crime. Regardless of this evidence, Jackson was able to plea bargain for a life sentence while Hill received a death sentence. There is also evidence to suggest that Hill was under the influence of cocaine at the time of the crime.

Furthermore, evidence and testimony show that Hill was known by his neighbors and family to be a caring and nonviolent person and that he had a trouble free-history throughout his years in school and in the neighborhood where he lived. In addition, Hill held a steady job from ninth grade until he became involved with drugs at age 23. Hill used money from work to help support his large family of 14 children. He also contributed time to helping raise his younger siblings. Also, although Hill remained in school until the 12th grade he never progressed beyond a fifth-grade reading level.

Clearly Hill is not the worst of the worst and therefore the death penalty is not appropriate for Clarence Edward Hill.

Please write to Gov. Jeb Bush on behalf of Clarence Hill!

HISTORY update 9-11-06 Clarence Hill

http://www.clarencehill.us/legal/history091106.htm


39
Filed & Entered:
09/01/2006
Order

41
Filed & Entered:
09/05/2006
Terminated:

09/06/2006
Motion for Reconsideration
--
Filed & Entered:
09/06/2006
Action Required by Chambers
43

Filed & Entered:
09/06/2006
Terminated:
09/11/2006
Motion for Reconsideration

44
Filed & Entered:
09/06/2006
Terminated:
09/11/2006
Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

45
Filed & Entered:
09/06/2006
Docket Annotation

46
Filed & Entered:
09/06/2006
Response in Opposition to Motion
--
Filed & Entered:
09/07/2006
Action Required by Chambers

47
Filed & Entered:
09/11/2006
Order on Motion for Reconsideration

Docket update federal court 09-11-06- Clarence Hill

http://www.clarencehill.us/legal/docket-09-11-06.htm

09/01/2006
39
ORDER re 34 Response filed by JAMES V CROSBY, JR, 37 Amended Complaint filed by CLARENCE E HILL, Motion to Dismiss Granted, Amended Complaint Dismissed. No stay of execution will issue in this case. Signed by Judge STEPHAN P MICKLE on 09/01/2006. (pao, Gainesville) (Entered: 09/01/2006)

09/05/2006
41
MOTION for Reconsideration re 39 Order, Dismissing Complaint by CLARENCE E HILL. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(DOSS, D) Modified on 9/7/2006 (llt, Gainesville). (Entered: 09/05/2006)

09/06/2006
43
CORRECTED MOTION for Reconsideration re 39 Order, Dismissing Complaint by CLARENCE E HILL. (Attachments: # 1)(DOSS, D) (Correcting 41 Motion for Reconsideration re: 39 Order) Modified on 9/6/2006 to clarify text(llt, Gainesville). (Entered: 09/06/2006)

09/06/2006
44
MOTION to Accept "Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Injunction to Stay His Execution Scheduled for September 20, 2006 at 6:00 p.m." as Timely Filed by CLARENCE E HILL. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(DOSS, D) (Entered: 09/06/2006)

09/06/2006
45
DOCKET ANNOTATION BY COURT: Re 41 MOTION for Reconsideration re 39 Order, Dismissing Complaint filed by CLARENCE E HILL, and re: 43 CORRECTED MOTION for Reconsideration re 39 Order, Dismissing Complaint filed by CLARENCE E HILL; Doc 41 was refiled per request by Chambers as it was unsigned; Also, 44 MOTION to Accept "Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Injunction to Stay His Execution Scheduled for September 20, 2006 at 6:00 p.m." as Timely Filed filed by CLARENCE E HILL, was improperly attached to Doc 41 and is now posted separately per request by Chambers, (llt, Gainesville) (Entered: 09/06/2006)
09/06/2006

ACTION REQUIRED BY CHAMBERS: Chambers of Judge Mickle notified that action is needed Re: 44 MOTION to Accept "Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Injunction to Stay His Execution Scheduled for September 20, 2006 at 6:00 p.m." as Timely Filed, and 43 Corrected MOTION for Reconsideration re 39 Order, Dismissing Complaint (llt, Gainesville) (Entered: 09/06/2006)
09/06/2006
46
RESPONSE in Opposition re 44 MOTION to Accept "Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Injunction to Stay His Execution Scheduled for September 20, 2006 at 6:00 p.m." as Timely Filed, 43 MOTION for Reconsideration re 39 Order, Dismissing Complaint filed by JAMES V CROSBY, JR. (SNURKOWSKI, CAROLYN) (Entered: 09/06/2006)
09/07/2006

ACTION REQUIRED BY CHAMBERS: Chambers of Judge Mickle notified that action is needed Re: 44 MOTION to Accept "Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Injunction to Stay His Execution Scheduled for September 20, 2006 at 6:00 p.m." as Timely Filed, 43 MOTION for Reconsideration re 39 Order, Dismissing Complaint, and 46 Response in Opposition to 43 and 44 Motions, (llt, Gainesville) (Entered: 09/07/2006)

09/11/2006
47
ORDER denying 43 Motion for Reconsideration filed by CLARENCE E HILL and denying 44 Motion to Stay; signed by Judge STEPHAN P MICKLE. (tss, Gainesville) (Entered: 09/11/2006)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

http://www.clarencehill.us/legal/show_case_doc_47,41522,,,,,182,1.pdf - PDF

http://www.clarencehill.us/legal/order9-11-06.htm - HTML



Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

CLARENCE HILL,
Plaintiff,

***CAPITAL***
vs. CASE NO. 4:06-CV-032-SPM

JAMES McDONOUGH and
CHARLIE CRIST,
Defendants.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND MOTION FOR STAY

THIS CAUSE
comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Hill’s “Corrected
Motion for Reconsideration and Setting Aside of Order Dismissing Complaint and
Denying Preliminary Temporary Injunction” (doc. 43); the Government’s
response in opposition (doc. 46); and the “Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary
Injunction to Stay His Execution Scheduled for September 20, 2006 at 6:00 p.m.”
(att. 1 to doc. 44), all filed September 6, 2006. For the reasons set forth below,
the Court finds the motion should be denied.

Hill does not specify whether his motion for reconsideration is brought
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 or 60. The major distinction
between the two is that Rule 59 “applies to motions for reconsideration of matters
encompassed in a decision on the merits of the dispute, and not matters
collateral to the merits.” Lucas v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 729 F.2d 1300, 1301

Page 2 of 3

1 The only point raised by Hill that bears mention is his insistence that he could not have
brought his § 1983 action until his death warrant was signed, because it was only then that he
could determine the specific means by which the State would carry out his execution. This point
necessarily assumes that the State arbitrarily and capriciously (or secretly) changes its chemical
cocktail on a regular basis. Even assuming that Hill was not previously aware of Florida’s
procedures for lethal injection, the 1999 Sims case detailed the procedure from beginning to end,
thus providing Hill with the information necessary to bring his case at that time. His decision to
wait until four days before his execution to file his motion does not entitle him either to a stay or to
a reconsideration of this Court’s previous rulings.
(11th Cir. 1984).

Because Hill argues that this Court has “misapprehended and
mistaken several issues of law and fact” (doc. 43-1 at 2), he is attacking “matters
encompassed in a decision on the merits of the dispute”; thus, his motion for
reconsideration will be treated as one arising under Rule 59(e).
“The only grounds for granting a [Rule 59(e)] motion are newly-discovered
evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.” In re Kellogg, 197 F.3d 1116, 1119
(11th Cir. 1999). This rule “may not be used to relitigate a claim.” Fry v.
Hillsborough County Sch. Bd., 2006 WL 2034967 at *7 (11th Cir. Jul. 20,
2006)(citing Mincey v. Head, 206 F.3d 1106, 1137 n. 69 (11th Cir.2000)).

Hill’s emotionally-laden arguments raise no new evidence, instead making
complaints under headings such as the following: “Truncated Consideration by
This Court Did Not Provide Mr. Hill Due Process in Litigating His § 1983 Claim.”1
Hill insinuates that this Court’s timeliness in rendering an order indicates
insufficient deliberation on the issues presented. However, Hill filed his original
motion for preliminary injunction in January of 2006. This Court has kept current
since that time (and before) with opinions issued by our nation’s courts on the
question of Eighth Amendment concerns in the context of lethal injection.

The Court has thoroughly examined relevant opinions, both state and federal, and

Page 3 of 3
applied them in a consistent manner to the facts presented in this case. All
parties should rest assured that this Court has given careful and searching
consideration to these weighty matters in rendering its decisions.
Hill has simply not made any showing of manifest error of law or fact in the
Court’s order; rather, it appears that Hill is engaging in dilatory tactics to delay a
death sentence that was imposed for a second time in 1986—two decades ago.
As the United States Supreme Court stated in Hill v. McDonough, “The federal
courts can and should protect States from dilatory or speculative suits.” Hill, 126
S.Ct. at 2104.

Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration
(doc. 43) and motion for stay (attachment 1 to doc. 44) are hereby denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this eleventh day of September, 2006.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle
Stephan P. Mickle
United States District Judge