An investigation by @guardian reveals that states have spent millions on illicit execution drugs, even requesting shipment in “unmarked boxes and jars.” theguardian.com/world/2021/apr…
Arizona purchased enough execution drugs to kill 200 people, at a cost of $1.5 million, and requested that the drugs be shipped from an undisclosed supplier in “unmarked boxes and jars.”
It is a felony under state and federal law to dispense execution drugs without a valid prescription. Medical practitioners are prohibited from prescribing drugs for use in executions. Arizona’s drug purchase was likely illegal.
What would happen if a regular person followed the example of Arizona’s state government and illegally purchased $1.5 million worth of drugs?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Justice Breyer also penned a dissent in U.S. v. Dustin Higgs, continuing his long line of opinions calling on the Supreme Court to reconsider whether the death penalty is constitutional in the first place.
After describing several of the legal claims raised by federal death row prisoners, Breyer says, “None of these legal questions is frivolous.” He adds that the Supreme Court’s recent “hurry up, hurry up” process “is no solution.”
Justice Breyer: “How just is a legal system that would execute an individual without consideration of a novel or significant legal question that he has raised?”
Justice Sotomayor opens her dissent in U.S. v. Dustin Higgs by saying the names of every person executed by the federal government over the past year.
Sotomayor continues by providing historical context. The federal government has executed more people over the past six months than it had in the previous six decades.
Sotomayor details some of the legal disputes that have come up around this spree of federal executions. She goes on to say that, “against this backdrop of legal uncertainty, @TheJusticeDept did not tread carefully.”
The SCOTUS voted to allow the federal government to execute Alfred Bourgeois despite the fact that he is intellectually disabled with an IQ measured between 70-75. Justice Sotomayor published a dissent joined by Justice Kagan.
The Federal Death Penalty Act clearly forbids the execution of a person who is “mentally retarded” (language from the statute). A federal district court found that Bourgeois had made a “strong showing” of intellectual disability but that was reversed by the 7th Circuit.
The 7th Circuit said that another court had found no intellectual disability in 2011. But that court relied on discredited observations and assumptions about people with intellectual disabilities in reaching its decision.
The SCOTUS has denied Brandon Bernard’s petition and this unjust execution will move forward now. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan would have granted a stay. Justice Sotomayor published a six-page dissent that lays out many of the legal reasons why this execution is wrong.
Justice Sotomayor details serious misconduct committed by federal prosecutors in Brandon Bernard’s case. Prosecutors knowingly presented false testimony and covered up evidence.
Prosecutors claimed at trial that Brandon Bernard was a ringleader in a gang. Before Brandon’s trial, a police officer investigator gave the prosecutors a pyramid chart showing that Brandon was actually at the bottom of any gang hierarchy. Prosecutors covered up that evidence.
I know many people are concerned about the damage Pres. Trump might do during his last two months in office. I’m focused on trying to save the lives of Orlando Hall, Lisa Montgomery, and Brandon Bernard. All three of them have federal execution dates in the coming weeks.
These three human beings are facing execution when, in just two months time, the new president would be sure to stop these federal killings. Just take Lisa Montgomery as an example.
Lisa Montgomery was dealt a losing hand from before her birth and now Trump is trying to trump that terrible hand with an execution in these last days of his presidency.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion this morning that reversed the 5th Circuit’s finding that Texas prison guards were immune from suit for torturing an incarcerated man by forcing him to sleep on a floor covered in sewage. Trent Taylor can now proceed with his lawsuit.
In September 2013, Texas prison guards placed Trent Taylor in a cell that was covered, ceiling to floor, in “massive amounts of feces.” Taylor did not eat or drink for nearly four days, fearing that his food would be contaminated in the filthy cell.
Prison guards then moved Taylor into a freezing cold cell that did not have a toilet. There was only a clogged drain in the floor. Taylor held his bladder for over 24 hours but eventually involuntarily relieved himself. Raw sewage backed up from the drain and covered the floor.