Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 60

Thread: David Zink - Missouri Execution - July 14, 2015

  1. #11
    Senior Member Frequent Poster PATRICK5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    329
    That wasn't why the stay was lifted. The USDC, which issued the stay, relinquished jurisdiction so the state could appeal to the 5th Circuit who ordered the stay lifted. Courts really don't give a damn about the media or petitions, etc., nor should they.
    Obama ate my dad

  2. #12
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    I agree with PATRICK5, that courts are not influenced by petitions and the media, but in certain states where the duty of setting execution dates is left to a government official I feel letter writing and media involvement may move things along, or at the very least bring attention to certain inmates. Case in point David Alan Gore
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  3. #13
    Jan
    Guest
    In today's United States Supreme Court orders, Zink's petition for writ of certiorari was DENIED.

    Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
    Case Nos.: (13-3699)
    Decision Date: January 24, 2014
    Rehearing Denied: January 27, 2014

  4. #14
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    In today's orders, the United States Supreme Court declined to review Zink's petition for certiorari.

    Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Missouri
    Case Nos.: (SC88279)
    Decision Date: October 28, 2014
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  5. #15
    Moderator MRBAM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Capital Region NY
    Posts
    865
    So where is this case now??

  6. #16
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    I believe it's ripe for a death warrant once the other Missouri inmates in line before Zink get theirs.

  7. #17
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    David Zink v Michael S. Worthington; John E. Winfield Leon Taylor; Walter T. Storey; Earl Ringo; Roderick Nunley Richard Strong; Marcellus S. Williams v George A. Lombardi; David R. Dormire; Terry Russell; John Does, 2-40

    In today's Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals opinions, the court AFFIRMED the district court's ruling that Missouri lethal injection protocol is constitutional and does not hinder the 8th amendment, and Missouri has the right to use compounding pharmacies... Or at least I think that is what it says!

    David Zink v. George Lombardi
    U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-2220
    U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City
    [PUBLISHED] [Per Curiam En Banc Decision - Chief Judge Riley and Judges Wollman, Loken, Smith and Gruender join in this opinion. Judge Colloton joins all but Part II.A of the opinion and Judge Shepherd joins all but Part II.B of the opinion.]
    Prisoner case - habeas - Death Penalty. The Missouri prisoners' second amended complaint failed to adequately allege that Missouri's lethal-injection protocol created a substantial risk of severe pain because none of the alleged potentialities the prisoners identified relating to compounded penobarbital rise to the level of "sure or very likely" to cause serious harm or severe pain; even if one of the harms identified were to occur, the prisoners offer nothing in their pleading to support the allegation that it would be more than an isolated incident, and an isolated incident, while regrettable, would not result in an Eighth Amendment violation; the claim, therefore is inadequately pled as a matter of law, and the district court did not err in dismissing it; the existence of an alternative method of execution is a necessary element of an Eighth Amendment claim and this element must be pleaded adequately in the complaint; here,the second amended complaint merely conceded that other methods the Department of Corrections could choose would be constitutional, and this concession, without additional factual enhancement, is insufficient to allege the necessary element of the existence of an alternative method; in sum, without a plausible allegation of a feasible alternative method of execution that would significantly reduce a substantial risk of serious pain, or a purposeful design by the State to inflict unnecessary pain, the plaintiff prisoners have not stated an Eighth Amendment claim based on the State's use of compounded pentobarbital in executions, and the district court did not err in dismissing the prisoners' Eighth Amendment claim; the prisoners have not pleaded that the use of pentobarbital will result in unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, and they have failed to state an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference to medical needs claim; where only the mode of execution has changed, with no allegation of superadded punishment or superior alternatives, the Ex Post Facto Clause is not implicated; prisoners failed to show that changes to the execution protocol deprived them of the timely and adequate notice needed to litigate the lawfulness of the procedures; the prisoners' allegations that the State violates its own execution protocol by executing prisoners while legal actions are pending fails to state a claim under the Equal Protection Clause; the State's decision to carry out a lawful execution when there is no judicial stay in place does not burden a prisoner's rights under the Eighth Amendment or other constitutional provision; the prisoners failed to state a claim of qualified right of public access to information regarding the source of the compounded pentobarbital to be used in their executions because they did not plausibly allege a history of openness to the general public; challenges to use of compounded pentobarbital under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Controlled Substances Act rejected as there is no private right of action under the statutes and the prisoners cannot use the Missouri Administrative Procedures Act to allege the denial of a private legal right under the federal statutes when the federal statutes themselves do not create such a private legal right. Judge Bye, with whom Judges Murphy and Kelly join, dissenting. Judge Shepherd, dissenting in part.
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  8. #18
    ProDP
    Guest
    Heidi, you are correct that is what it reads . I read the same thing you do, the LI protocol has been upheld! Good news isn't it?

  9. #19
    Moderator mostlyclassics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Wilmette, IL
    Posts
    627
    Edward Bulwer-Lytton, you have been bested, and then some!

  10. #20
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    On April 27, 2015, Zink filed an appeal before the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

    http://dockets.justia.com/docket/cir...ts/ca8/15-1855

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •