The high court made a controversial ruling on a drug implicated in botched executions. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The lethal injection ruling that takes America another step away from banning executions

Has a recent Supreme Court ruling made it harder to defend people on death row?

UPDATE 15/7/15

David Zink was executed by the state of Missouri yesterday at 19:41. 

Sindel said: 

These cases are always very difficult. You’re dealing with a man 14 years after the crime. 14 years different. He’s not the same person he was. You can’t really stop the feelings and emotion that goes with that sometimes. We were optimistic, perhaps mistakenly so.

We saw Zink yesterday. He had become religious. He was a regular reader of the bible and he said he hoped there could be forgiveness for what he had done. He apologised to the victim’s family. He’d become resigned to what was going to happen.

***

Next week is the year anniversary of Joseph Wood’s execution. A convicted murderer, he was given a cocktail of drugs by the state of Arizona – a lethal injection. It took two hours for him to die. It was the third highly problematic execution in 2014, after the similarly harrowing deaths of Dennis McGuire in Ohio and Clayton Lockett in Oklahoma.

The execution induced wildly different reactions from states. Arizona suspended its death penalty programme. Utah re-introduced the option of execution by firing squad. Nebraska outlawed the death penalty completely earlier this year.

They were all responding, at least in part, to the same possibility  that the lethal injection in America would be ruled as unconstitutional. Last month that very nearly happened.

On 29 June, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Glossip vs Gross. Three Oklahoma inmates on death row argued that the use of Midazolam – used in the three bungled executions last year – should be ruled as a “cruel and unusual punishment”. The eighth amendment of the American constitution expressly forbids this. They lost by five votes, to four.

Crucially, however, the details of the ruling have consequences for attorneys defending people on death row up and down the country. 

Rick Sindel and Kay Parish represent death row inmate David Zink. In 2001, he murdered 19-year-old Amanda Morton after he had rear-ended her car off a freeway in Missouri. After raping her he admitted to strangling Morton and then cutting her spinal cord so that she would “remain that way”. He buried her body in a graveyard. The state of Missouri has set his date of execution for 14 July – tomorrow.

David Zink is due to be executed this week.

His legal team are in the last stages of appeal. His confession means that their main focus falls on the type of drugs that Missouri intends to use to kill Zink.

Sindel and Parish are one of the first, if not the first, lawyers who have to work with the ramifications of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The most notable problem they have is with a specific judgement – that lawyers using the “cruel and unusual punishment” defence must suggest an alternative form of execution that is not cruel and unusual. Or as Parish says “lawyers must tell a court how to kill our clients”.

It puts lawyers like Sindel and Parish, who are viscerally against capital punishment, in a difficult position.

“It’s a pretty nasty ruling in my opinion, and one that puts those of us trying to prevent our clients from being forcibly subject to this human experimentation in quite an ethical quandary”, says Parish.

The decision suggests that method x cannot be cruel and unusual because you have not explained a better method. Or to put it another way, it asks people who believe that all methods of execution are cruel and unusual to accept the court’s contention that there are humane and dignified forms of execution.

After much deliberation Zink’s team decided last week not to suggest an alternative form of capital punishment.

It’s left Sindel and Parish in a fairly desperate position. Previously they had argued that Missouri’s lethal agent – a form of “pentobarbital” was illegal. They claimed the drug was made by an unknown compounding pharmacy and was a “copy” of an FDA-approved drug, rather than a directly approved agent.

David Zink (left) as a young child.

They also put forward the argument that the method of execution violated state and federal controlled substance laws because the compounded pentobarbital is procured by an invalid “prescription”  written by a doctor who is contractually-bound to write the prescription and who conducts no medical examination.

It didn’t work.

As a result, another lawyer has decided to take one last roll of the dice. Justin Gelfand is an attorney with a very different legal specialism to Sindel and Parish. He’s a former federal tax prosecutor. Counterintuitively he thinks he might be able to save Zink’s life using his own specialisms in tax law.

Gelfand has prepared a public interest lawsuit using an obscure law, a Taxpayers Suit. The law has never been used in this context in Missouri legal history. It allows an action to be brought by a private individual to prevent state or federal government from unlawfully diverting public funds. It is generally used in cases of corruption or impropriety. It’s been filed by four (carefully chosen) plaintiffs, including a former member of the Missouri Senate and a Catholic nun, no less.

They argue that the suit “is not about the general legality of the death penalty in Missouri or elsewhere,” but has been filed because “Missouri public officials responsible for overseeing and administering executions are violating federal and state law using the tax dollars of hardworking Missourians.” 

The suit makes particular reference to arguments made by Sindel, Parish and others  that the state of Missouri’s use of compound pentobarbital is illegal – arguments that had previously been dismissed by Missouri courts.

The hearing for the lawsuit will continue today, less than 24 hours before Zink’s execution date. We’ll know by tomorrow whether it’s been successful, though as it’s never been used before it’s a bit of a long shot. It marks the penultimate day of years of appeals that have fallen on deaf ears in Missouri courts.

The Supreme Court’s decision won’t stop lawyers like Sindel and Parish, but it does make their lives harder. “There are those of us who just won’t give up as long as there is breath in our bodies”, says Sindel. It’s the language of hope, perhaps, over expectation. 

Getty
Show Hide image

After Article 50 is triggered, what happens next?

The UK must prepare for years, if not decades, of negotiating. 

Back in June, when Europe woke to the news of Brexit, the response was muted. “When I first emerged from my haze to go to the European Parliament there was a big sign saying ‘We will miss you’, which was sweet,” Labour MEP Seb Dance remembered at a European Parliament event in London. “The German car industry said we don’t want any disruption of trade.”

But according to Dance – best known for holding up a “He’s Lying” sign behind Nigel Farage’s head – the mood has hardened with the passing months.

The UK is seen as demanding. The Prime Minister’s repeated refusal to guarantee EU citizens’ rights is viewed as toxic. The German car manufacturers now say the EU is more important than British trade. “I am afraid that bonhomie has evaporated,” Dance said. 

On 31 March the UK will trigger Article 50. Doing so will end our period of national soul-searching and begin the formal process of divorce. So what next?

The European Parliament will have its say

In the EU, just as in the UK, the European Parliament will not be the lead negotiator. But it is nevertheless very powerful, because MEPs can vote on the final Brexit deal, and wield, in effect, a veto.

The Parliament’s chief negotiator is Guy Verhofstadt, a committed European who has previously given Remoaners hope with a plan to offer them EU passports. Expect them to tune in en masse to watch when this idea is revived in April (it’s unlikely to succeed, but MEPs want to discuss the principle). 

After Article 50 is triggered, Dance expects MEPs to draw up a resolution setting out its red lines in the Brexit negotiations, and present this to the European Commission.

The European Commission will spearhead negotiations

Although the Parliament may provide the most drama, it is the European Commission, which manages the day-to-day business of the EU, which will lead negotiations. The EU’s chief negotiator is Michel Barnier. 

Barnier is a member of the pan-EU European People’s Party, like Jean-Claude Juncker and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. He has said of the negotiations: “We are ready. Keep calm and negotiate.”

This will be a “deal” of two halves

The Brexit divorce is expected to take 16 to 18 months from March (although this is simply guesswork), which could mean Britain officially Brexits at the start of 2019.

But here’s the thing. The divorce is likely to focus on settling up bills and – hopefully – agreeing a transitional arrangement. This is because the real deal that will shape Britain’s future outside the EU is the trade deal. And there’s no deadline on that. 

As Dance put it: “The duration of that trade agreement will exceed the life of the current Parliament, and might exceed the life of the next as well.”

The trade agreement may look a bit like Ceta

The European Parliament has just approved the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (Ceta) with Canada, a mammoth trade deal which has taken eight years to negotiate. 

One of the main stumbling points in trade deals is agreeing on similar regulatory standards. The UK currently shares regulations with the rest of the UK, so this should speed up the process.

But another obstacle is that national or regional parliaments can vote against a trade deal. In October, the rebellious Belgian region of Wallonia nearly destroyed Ceta. An EU-UK deal would be far more politically sensitive. 

The only way is forward

Lawyers working for the campaign group The People’s Challenge have argued that it will legally be possible for the UK Parliament to revoke Article 50 if the choice is between a terrible deal and no deal at all. 

But other constitutional experts think this is highly unlikely to work – unless a penitent Britain can persuade the rest of the EU to agree to turn back the clock. 

Davor Jancic, who lectures on EU law at Queen Mary University of London, believes Article 50 is irrevocable. 

Jeff King, a professor of law at University College London, is also doubtful, but has this kernel of hope for all the Remainers out there:

“No EU law scholar has suggested that with the agreement of the other 27 member states you cannot allow a member state to withdraw its notice.”

Good luck chanting that at a march. 

Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.