Court backs Mo. death penalty procedure
Court Alerts
[##_1L|1409127290.jpg|width="120" height="88" alt=""|_##]A federal appeals court opened the way for Missouri to resume executing inmates, ruling Monday that the state's lethal injection procedure is not cruel and unusual punishment. The case filed on behalf of condemned killer Michael Taylor had effectively halted Missouri executions since early last year. A judge said he wanted to be sure that the three-drug injection method did not cause risk of pain and suffering.
A three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found "no evidence to indicate that any of the last six inmates executed suffered any unnecessary pain," according to its ruling.
The court's decision reversed a ruling by U.S. District Judge Fernando Gaitan Jr. ordering reforms to Missouri's lethal injection procedures. He wanted the state to involve a doctor specializing in anesthesia, but the state has been unable to find a doctor willing to participate.
Missouri is among nine states that have put executions on hold as it grapples with whether lethal injection is inhumane.
Attorney General Jay Nixon said the decision "reopens the necessary legal avenue for the state of Missouri to move forward on this issue."
Margaret Phillips of the Eastern Missouri Coalition Against the Death Penalty said many questions remain unanswered and it would be unwise for the state to renew executions.
"The uncertainty of all of this is a good indication that Missouri needs a moratorium on the death penalty," she said.
A message seeking comment was left with the governor's office.
Taylor, convicted of killing 15-year-old Ann Harrison in Kansas City in 1989, was hours away from being put to death in February 2006 when the execution was halted. His attorney, Ginger Anders, said she would appeal Monday's ruling but declined further comment.
Related listings
-
High court restores killer's death sentence
Court Alerts 06/04/2007[##_1L|1336163544.jpg|width="130" height="97" alt=""|_##]Reversing the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in another murder case, the Supreme Court today restored a death sentence for a Washington state man who abducted, tortured and killed a young wo...
-
Arkansas court ends school-funding suit
Court Alerts 06/01/2007[##_1L|1066980411.jpg|width="130" height="90" alt=""|_##]State lawmakers are adequately funding public schools, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled Thursday in ending a long-running lawsuit. The court singled out the Legislature‘s continuing review of i...
-
NJ Court Certifies Wal-Mart Class-Action
Court Alerts 05/31/2007[##_1L|1386478295.jpg|width="130" height="90" alt=""|_##]The New Jersey Supreme Court on Thursday certified a class-action lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. by employees who claim that the nation's largest retailer denied them meal and rest breaks...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.